blog.darkstar.work - a simple url encoder/decoder

 a simple url encoder/decoder
 http://blog.darkstar.work

Labels

Wirtschaft (140) Österreich (110) Pressefreiheit (99) IT (79) code (51) Staatsschulden (37) EZB (27) Pensionssystem (15)

2023-06-02

Commercial business livestyle, NPO and the few community based lifestyle, that we ignore

Common images in western societies from social and economic point of view:

Family (classic)


At least one or both parents work most of the year and gain income for family. Family might get money from the state for the children to help getting them educated in public or private school and later an education to get a paid job in our economy.

Pair of adults (might be even gay or lesbian)

A pair in a kind of love or sexual relation lives together, because they cannot reproduce or don't want to have children. Normally both work (maybe not fulltime) and earn money.

Single adult (might be divorced father)

A single person lives alone, earns money.

Forgotten community based live styles

When you really open your eyes, you will find a lot of community based live styles, that were mostley not declared as community, but practically have the tendency / bias to live together as a community, were the priority to earn money is quiet low.
Some examples:
  1. extended family (were some of the members receive money in form of social benefits or unemployment insucrance from state, insucrances or relatives, could be clan based)
  2. spiritual or far left community (e.g. new age group, marxists, trotskyists, like-minded community)
  3. [Please enter you own expiriences here]
Unfortunately, the original form of old farmer families or kibbutz is really outdated.

Misunderstandings and conflicts concerning community based live forms

  • It is a mistake to assume that all community based lifestyles are voluntary, often it is economic pressure that leads to such living conditions.
  • But it is also wrong that nobody wants to live like this and people who live like this need education upgrades or training positions to enter jobs. 
  • Since community-based forms of life are mostly sustained by money that is not entirely self-earned, there is often the argument that they take it away from the really old and weak or disabled because it is mostly spent by the state.
  • Community based persons never understand the importance that somebody is stressed and races to an urgent meeting with an important wealth customer.
  • On the other hand, working people with functioning business models do not understand the obligations of community-based individuals, who often donate odd amounts of time to unnecessary inefficient rituals within the community.
  • Community based lifestyles are often viewed as precariously archaic or uncivilized, although the rules or code in such communities are often very complex, but often inhibit individuals from their full economic capacity or individual self-expression.
In my opinion we should sharpen our awareness and not a standard protocol or purely economic imperative when encountering these rare but nonetheless existing lifestyles.

Why I wrote this article:
Tonight my mind was clear and I saw, that some people don't want to be driven from an economic imperative and like more a community based life style. In Austria such people don't receive much money from the state, but often were discrimented or motivated to follow an economic working life model.


2023-05-09

2022-11-29

flex - fast lexical analyzer generator sample

Who remember flex: fast lexical analyzer generator?

Here is a short sample, I have written it under gnu linux and ported it to win32 using gnuwin32 flex and getoptwin:

%option noyywrap

%{
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
#include "getopt.h"
#include <string.h> 
#define MAXLEN 1024

int i, j, idx, len, mode = 0;
char tmps[MAXLEN], reverse[MAXLEN];

%}
SEGA  [2][5][0-5]
SEGB  [2][0-4][0-9]
SEGC  [1][0-9]{2}
SEGD  [1-9][0-9]{0,1}
SEG   {SEGA}|{SEGB}|{SEGC}|{SEGD}
IP    {SEG}["."]{SEG}["."]{SEG}["."]{SEG}

HOSTDOMAINSEGMENT [0-9a-zA-Z_"\-"]+["."]
TOPLEVELDOMAIN [a-zA-Z]{2,7}
HOSTNAME {HOSTDOMAINSEGMENT}+{TOPLEVELDOMAIN}
USER [0-9A-Za-z_"\-""."]+

EMAIL1 {USER}"@"{HOSTNAME}
EMAIL2 {USER}"@"{IP}

URIPROTOCOL [a-zA-Z]{2,10}"://"
URISUFFIX [^ \t\n\r"@"","">""<""("")""{""}"]
URL1   {URIPROTOCOL}{HOSTNAME}{URISUFFIX}*
URL2   {URIPROTOCOL}{IP}{URISUFFIX}*

%%
<<EOF>> {
        exit(1);
    }

{EMAIL1} |
{EMAIL2} {
        if (strchr(yytext, '@') != (char *)NULL) 
        {
    switch((mode % 16)) 
    {
case 0: strcpy(tmps, yytext); break;
case 1: strcpy(tmps, strchr(yytext, (int)'@')); break;
case 2: strcpy(tmps, &strchr(yytext, (int)'@')[1]); break;
     case 4: 
strcpy(tmps, &strchr(yytext, (int)'@')[1]);
len = strlen(tmps); 
for (j = 0, idx = 0; ((j < len) && (j < MAXLEN-1)); j++) 
{
                            if (tmps[j] == '.'
                            {
                                for (i = idx; i <= j; 
                                    reverse[(len-j) + (i-idx)] = tmps[i++]);
                                idx = j + 1;
                            }
}
for (i = idx; i <= j; 
                            reverse[(len-j) + (i-idx)] = (i < len) ? tmps[i] : '.', i++);
reverse[len + 1] = '\0';
strcpy(tmps, reverse);
break;
case 8: strcpy(tmps, &strrchr(yytext, (int)'.')[1]); break;
default: strcpy(tmps, yytext); break;
    }
    (void) printf("%s\n", tmps);
        }
    }

{URL1} |
{URL2} {
if (mode < 16) 
{
            switch((mode % 16)) 
            {
                case 0: strcpy(tmps, yytext); break;
         case 1: strcpy(tmps, strchr(yytext, (int)'/')); break;
         case 2: strcpy(tmps, &strrchr(yytext, (int)'/')[1]); break
         case 4: 
                        strcpy(tmps, &strrchr(yytext, (int)'/')[1]);
                        len = strlen(tmps);
                        for (j = 0, idx = 0; ((j < len) && (j < MAXLEN-1)) ; j++)
     {
                            if (tmps[j] == '.'
                            {
                                for (i = idx; i <= j; 
                                    reverse[(len-j) + (i-idx)] = tmps[i++]);
                                idx = j + 1;
                            }
                        }
                        for (i = idx; i <= j; 
                            reverse[(len-j) + (i-idx)] = (i < len) ? tmps[i] : '.', i++);
                        reverse[len + 1] = '\0';
                        strcpy(tmps, reverse);
                        break;
                case 8: strcpy(tmps, &strrchr(yytext, (int)'.')[1]); break;
                default: strcpy(tmps, yytext); break;
            }
            (void) printf("%s\n", tmps);
        }     
    } 

^[\n;] { ; }

[\r\n]+ { ; }

. { ; }

%%
void yyerror() { exit(1); }

void usage(const char *cmd) 
{
    (void) printf("Usage: %s [-f file] [-a ] [ -r ] [ -u ]\n", cmd);
    (void) printf("\t simple email address and uri lexer reads from stdin \n");
    (void) printf("\t -a, --noat    \t print only hostname of email address (all chars left of \'@\') \n");
    (void) printf("\t -u, --nouser  \t print email without username \n");
    (void) printf("\t -t, --top     \t prints domain toplevel only, when using option -a | -u \n");
    (void) printf("\t -n, --nouris \t print only email address and not uris\n");
    (void) printf("\t -r, --reverse \t reverse the hostdomain / ip address segments\n");
    
    exit(0);
}

int _tmain(int argc, TCHAR** argv)
{
    static int verbose_flag;
    int c;

    while(1)
    {
        static struct option long_options[] =
        {
            {_T("help"), ARG_NONE, 0, _T('h')},
            {_T("noat"), ARG_NONE, 0, _T('a')},
            {_T("nouser"), ARG_NONE, 0, _T('u')},
            {_T("top"), ARG_NONE, 0, _T('t')},
            {_T("nouris"), ARG_NONE, 0, _T('n')},
            {_T("reverse"),     ARG_NONE, 0, _T('r')},
            { ARG_NULL,         ARG_NULL, ARG_NULL, ARG_NULL}
        }; 

        int option_index = 0;
        c = getopt_long(argc, argv, _T("hautnr:"), long_options, &option_index);
        if (c == -1) 
            break;
        switch (c) // Handle options
        {
            case 0: // If this option set a flag, do nothing else now.
                    if (long_options[option_index].flag != 0)
                        break;
                    _tprintf (_T("option %s"), long_options[option_index].name);
                    if (optarg)
                        _tprintf (_T(" with arg %s"), optarg);
                    _tprintf (_T("\n"));
                    break;
            case _T('u'): mode = 1; break
            case _T('a'): mode = 2; break
            case _T('r'): mode = 4; break;
            case _T('h'): usage(argv[0]); break;
            case _T('t'): mode = 8; break;
            case _T('n'): mode += 16; break;  
            case '?': break// getopt_long already printed an error message. 
            default: abort();
        }
    }
    (void) fflush(stdout);
    yyin = stdin;
    yylex();
    exit(0);
}

Original posted 2011 here: http://www.area23.at/he/security/flex

2022-11-15

Could too much function pointers (delegates) inside many huge loops have an effect of unoptimizable code?

We have this simple c modified code from stack overflow called funcptrtest.c:

include <stdio.h>
/*   C code for program funcptrtest.c 
  => https://pastebin.com/rUtXfgSG 
*/
const int b = 23;

// A normal function with an int parameter and void return type
void fun(int a)
{
  if (a < b)
    printf("Value of a (%d) is lesser then value of b (%d)\n", a, b);
  else if (a == b)
    printf("Value of a (%d) is equal value of b (%d)\n", a, b);
  else if (a > b)
    printf("Value of a (%d) is greater than value of b (%d)\n", a, b);
}

// main => NO KNR style int main(argc, argv) int argc; char **argv 
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
    int i = 0;
    /* fun_ptr is a pointer to function fun()
           void (*fun_ptr)(int) = &fun;
         is equivalent of following two
           void (*fun_ptr)(int);
           fun_ptr = &fun;
    */
    void (*fun_ptr)(int) = &fun;

    // call once with static int
    (*fun_ptr)(b);

    // iterate through for loop
    for (i = 1; i < 101; i+=11)  {
        // Invoking fun() using fun_ptr
        (*fun_ptr)(i);
    }

    return 0;
}

We compile it now with gnu c compiler with gcc option -S and generate an assembler file:

gcc -S funcptrtest.c -o funcptrtest.asm

Result will be something like this:

.file   "funcptrtest.c"
        .text
        .globl  b
        .section        .rodata
        .align 4
        .type   b, @object
        .size   b, 4
b:
        .long   23
        .align 8
.LC0:
        .string "Value of a (%d) is lesser then value of b (%d)\n"
        .align 8
.LC1:
        .string "Value of a (%d) is equal value of b (%d)\n"
        .align 8
.LC2:
        .string "Value of a (%d) is greater than value of b (%d)\n"
        .text
        .globl  fun
        .type   fun, @function
fun:
.LFB0:
        .cfi_startproc
        endbr64
        pushq   %rbp
        .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
        .cfi_offset 6, -16
        movq    %rsp, %rbp
        .cfi_def_cfa_register 6
        subq    $16, %rsp
        movl    %edi, -4(%rbp)
        movl    $23, %eax
        cmpl    %eax, -4(%rbp)
        jge     .L2.L2:
        movl    $23, %eax
        cmpl    %eax, -4(%rbp)
        jne     .L4
        movl    $23, %edx
        movl    -4(%rbp), %eax
        movl    %eax, %esi
        leaq    .LC1(%rip), %rax
        movq    %rax, %rdi
        movl    $0, %eax
        call    printf@PLT
        jmp     .L5
        .L2:
        movl    $23, %eax
        cmpl    %eax, -4(%rbp)
        jne     .L4
        movl    $23, %edx
        movl    -4(%rbp), %eax
        movl    %eax, %esi
        leaq    .LC1(%rip), %rax
        movq    %rax, %rdi
        movl    $0, %eax
        call    printf@PLT
.L2:
        movl    $23, %eax
        cmpl    %eax, -4(%rbp)
        jne     .L4
        movl    $23, %edx
        movl    -4(%rbp), %eax
        movl    %eax, %esi
        leaq    .LC1(%rip), %rax
        movq    %rax, %rdi
        movl    $0, %eax
        call    printf@PLT
        jmp     .L5
.L4:
        movl    $23, %eax
        cmpl    %eax, -4(%rbp)
        jle     .L5
        movl    $23, %edx
        movl    -4(%rbp), %eax
        movl    %eax, %esi
        leaq    .LC2(%rip), %rax
        movq    %rax, %rdi
        movl    $0, %eax
        call    printf@PLT
.L5:
        nop
        leave
        .cfi_def_cfa 7, 8
        ret
        .cfi_endproc     
.LFE0:
        .size   fun, .-fun
        .globl  main
        .type   main, @function
main:
.LFB1:
        .cfi_startproc
        endbr64
        pushq   %rbp
        .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
        .cfi_offset 6, -16
        movq    %rsp, %rbp
        .cfi_def_cfa_register 6
        subq    $32, %rsp
        movl    %edi, -20(%rbp)
        movq    %rsi, -32(%rbp)
        movl    $0, -12(%rbp)
        leaq    fun(%rip), %rax
        movq    %rax, -8(%rbp)
        movl    $23, %edx
        movq    -8(%rbp), %rax
        movl    %edx, %edi
        call    *%rax
        movl    $1, -12(%rbp)
        jmp     .L7
.L8:
        movl    -12(%rbp), %eax
        movq    -8(%rbp), %rdx
        movl    %eax, %edi
        call    *%rdx
        addl    $11, -12(%rbp)
.L7:
        cmpl    $100, -12(%rbp)
        jle     .L8
        movl    $0, %eax
        leave
        .cfi_def_cfa 7, 8
        ret
        .cfi_endproc
.LFE1:
        .size   main, .-main
        .ident  "GCC: (Ubuntu 11.3.0-1ubuntu1~22.04) 11.3.0"
        .section        .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
        .section        .note.gnu.property,"a"
        .align 8
        .long   1f - 0f
        .long   4f - 1f
        .long   5
0:
        .string "GNU"
1:
        .align 8
        .long   0xc0000002
        .long   3f - 2f
2:
        .long   0x3
3:
        .align 8
4:

Lets look, if a simple loop is faster than a function pointer delegate call:

/* program looptest.c */
include <stdio.h>

const int b = 23;

// main
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
    int i = 0;
    int a = 23;

    /*
    if (a < b)
        printf("Value of a (%d) is lesser then value of b (%d)\n", a, b);
    else if (a == b)
       printf("Value of a (%d) is equal value of b (%d)\n", a, b);
    else if (a > b)
       printf("Value of a (%d) is greater than value of b (%d)\n", a, b);
    */

    // iterate through for loop
    for (i = 1; i < 4194304; i+=11)  {
        a = i;
        if (a < b)
           printf("Value of a (%d) is lesser then value of b (%d)\n", a, b);
        else if (a == b)
           printf("Value of a (%d) is equal value of b (%d)\n", a, b);
        else if (a > b)
           printf("Value of a (%d) is greater than value of b (%d)\n", a, b);
    }

    return 0;
}

/* program funcptrtest.c */
include <stdio.h>

const int b = 23;

// A normal function with an int parameter and void return type
void fun(int a)
{
  if (a < b)
    printf("Value of a (%d) is lesser then value of b (%d)\n", a, b);
  else if (a == b)
    printf("Value of a (%d) is equal value of b (%d)\n", a, b);
  else if (a > b)
    printf("Value of a (%d) is greater than value of b (%d)\n", a, b);
}

// main
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
    int i = 0;
    /* fun_ptr is a pointer to function fun()

       void (*fun_ptr)(int) = &fun;
       is equivalent of following two
       void (*fun_ptr)(int);
       fun_ptr = &fun;
    */
    void (*fun_ptr)(int) = &fun;

    // call once with static int
    // (*fun_ptr)(b);

    // iterate through for loop
    for (i = 1; i < 4194304; i+=11)  {
        // Invoking fun() using fun_ptr
        (*fun_ptr)(i);
    }

    return 0;
}

Well, that's not so deterministic, of course our simple looptest.asm has a shorter assembler.

compile options

But execution time is not so huge difference, we have to simulate, that in many scenarios.

[To be continued ...]

2022-10-15

About identity & privacy

Most complete Identity of a person is defined / determined by different public, restricted or private accessible spheres.



[ to be continued ... ]


2022-10-11

It's about creating distributed service oriented communications

Attention:
This article isn't about daily standard electronic communications via network protocols (e.g. email services or shared network folders),  neither about user authentication / authorization nor groupware. 

It's about: 
Implementing or consuming customizable reliable distributed services;
by choosing & implementing a programmable extensible scalable, easily portable, standardized inter-compatible fail-safe resilient communication middleware, that's financially essential for most critical business processes.

For what kind of companies is that useful, important or relevant?
It's relevant for all companies, that consume many crtical data from external partners / service providers; 
then process received & own data inside different departments (maybe in different locations) with different areas of responsibility (e.g. fraud detection, critical real-time scaling of dynamic hardware (memory, harddisks and available CPUs, permanent risk adjustment and last but not least anonymized [General Data Protection Regulation] precise reporting for legal reasons);
finally  and ultimately share processed data to maybe different  external organisations with very deviating requirements, like government fraud reporting agency on one side and partners inside a foundation or joint umbrella organization however.

Overview most common distributed service oriented communication technologies in history

What technologies do you use in your company / organisation or as private person for distributed service oriented communication?

    1. antique: [ 1980s ]
    2. old: [ around the millennium ]
    3. Previous generation: [ since 2010 ]


    What local software suites / solutions / products and enterprise cloud services are included in your distributed service oriented communication(s workflows)?

    1. Microsoft BizTalk Server
    2. RabbitMQ [ github.com/rabbitmq ]
    3. Amazon Web Services [ aws ]
    4. Azure RestAPI Reference 

    [ to be continued ... ]






    -