ASP.NET WebForms… Redux


ASP.NET & “Classic ASP”

ASP.NET WebForms was introduced commercially by Microsoft as a part of the .NET development environment in 2001.  Up until around 2010 it was the dominant web development environment in the Information Technology industry.

It was designed to replace what is now called “Classic ASP” in order to make web development easier to accomplish and learn.  And that it did do very successfully.  Since 2010 however, a movement spurred on by the Open Source Community has primarily turned the clock back to the days of “Classic ASP”, which was unfairly maligned by ASP.NET promoters both from Microsoft and the development community.  The same has happened to ASP.NET WebForms by similar promoters from the Open Source Community and the younger professionals, many who have never learned the capabilities of ASP.NET WebForms but have instead concentrated on the newer web technologies, which in reality are not all that new.

“Classic ASP” was at one time the best web development environment available to professional developers.  The emerging Java web development standards of the day, due to their inherent complexity could never compete with the development efficiency which a “Classic ASP” application could be built.

No doubt, “Classic ASP” had its disadvantages that were eventually promoted to allow it to be replaced by ASP.NET WebForms but in it’s day nothing could match it’s dominant ease-of-use construct.

“Classic ASP” was in effect a mirror image of the current bandwagon of technologies without all the bells and whistles that have been added to them.  It allowed one to create both mixed-code modules where HTML, markup script, and dynamic scripts could be implemented.  For those that wanted code-only modules, this option was as much an option as the mixed-code one.  In this type of code-base, HTML and markup script were simply made as constants to Request.Response statements while still being able to access and process dynamic script either implemented with VBScript or JavaScript.

Read more of this post

“Digital Crack” – A Self-induced Nightmare


By now many are aware of the ongoing fight between the FBI and Apple over the FBI’s request to have Apple devise a version of it’s iOS operating system that will include some form of encrypted backdoor access to all of the company’s customers’ iPhones and iPads.  Oddly enough, the same request hasn’t been made for Apple’s desktop systems or their laptop line.  If it has, it so far has not been mentioned in the press.  Nor has a similar request been made to Samsung (at least not as publicly if it has been made), most likely a result of it being a foreign corporation.

The reaction has been, and rightly so, quite fierce from the technical community who see such a request as compromising the security of customer devices for the possibility of having complete access by the FBI if it deems it warranted.  Similarly, the CIA has weighed in, in the FBI’s favor on this matter.

Considering that the NSA is already scooping up every electronic transmission it can get it’s hands on, both within the United States and outside of it, the request by the FBI appears to be rather redundant though criminals with any brains, would not electronically transmit any incriminating information in the first place and as such, probably would not hide such information on a device that can be easily stolen or lost.

Yet, the FBI request in question appears to center around access to the smart-phones of the San Bernardino shooters only a few months ago.  And here the local police have demonstrated that such access would probably yield little if any worthwhile information since they had pieced together all of the needed information through normal investigative means.

Whether you believe that the San Bernardino attack was a “False Flag” operation or not (and there is some evidence to suppose that it was), the mainstream media presentation of the situation has already been founded on the acquisition of data through normal investigative channels.  For example, the police investigators have found absolutely no links between these shooters and any radical terrorist organizations, though they may have been influenced by the propaganda from such groups.  If there are no links found in any avenues of normal investigative procedures, it is unlikely that such contradictory information would be found on one or two smart devices in the shooters’ possession.

Being that as it may, allowing any government or business organization to have an open-door pathway into one’s privacy at such a level is somewhat ridiculous given the technical challenges it poses and the fact that once provided leaves such a path also open to those who are part of the criminal mindset that the FBI is trying to get information on in the first place.  In this case, you simply can’t “have your cake and eat it as well”.

Read more of this post

%d bloggers like this: