Calculator_app | Simple Calculator App | Apps library

We have some apps (or maybe we should call them a handful of scripts) that use Google APIs to facilitate some administrative tasks. Recently, after making another client_id in the same project, I started getting an error message similar to the one described in localhost redirect_uri does not work for Google Oauth2 (results in 400: invalid_request error). I.e.,

Error 400: invalid_request

You can't sign in to this app because it doesn't comply with Google's OAuth 2.0 policy for keeping apps secure.

You can let the app developer know that this app doesn't comply with one or more Google validation rules.

Request details:

The content in this section has been provided by the app developer. This content has not been reviewed or verified by Google.

If you’re the app developer, make sure that these request details comply with Google policies.

redirect_uri: urn:ietf:wg:oauth:2.0:oob

How do I get through this error? It is important to note that:

• The OAuth consent screen for this project is marked as "Internal". Therefore any mentions of Google review of the project, or publishing status are irrelevant
• I do have "Trust internal, domain-owned apps" enabled for the domain
• Another client id in the same project works and there are no obvious differences between the client IDs - they are both "Desktop" type which only gives me a Client ID and Client secret that are different
• This is a command line script, so I use the "copy/paste" verification method as documented here hence the urn:ietf:wg:oauth:2.0:oob redirect URI (copy/paste is the only friendly way to run this on a headless machine which has no browser).
• I was able to reproduce the same problem in a dev domain. I have three client ids. The oldest one is from January 2021, another one from December 2021, and one I created today - March 2022. Of those, only the December 2021 works and lets me choose which account to authenticate with before it either accepts it or rejects it with "Error 403: org_internal" (this is expected). The other two give me an "Error 400: invalid_request" and do not even let me choose the "internal" account. Here are the URLs generated by my app (I use the ruby google client APIs) and the only difference between them is the client_id - January 2021, December 2021, March 2022.

Here is the part of the code around the authorization flow, and the URLs for the different client IDs are what was produced on the $stderr.puts url line. It is pretty much the same thing as documented in the official example here (version as of this writing).

Today i have got this email:

Last July, we announced Advertising policy changes to help bolster security and privacy. We added new restrictions on identifiers used by apps that target children. When users choose to delete their advertising ID in order to opt out of personalization advertising, developers will receive a string of zeros instead of the identifier if they attempt to access the identifier. This behavior will extend to phones, tablets, and Android TV starting April 1, 2022. We also announced that you need to declare an AD_ID permission when you update your app targeting API level to 31 (Android 12). Today, we are sharing that we will give developers more time to ease the transition. We will require this permission declaration when your apps are able to target Android 13 instead of starting with Android 12.

Action Items If you use an advertising ID, you must declare the AD_ID Permission when your app targets Android 13 or above. Apps that don’t declare the permission will get a string of zeros. Note: You’ll be able to target Android 13 later this year. If your app uses an SDK that has declared the Ad ID permission, it will acquire the permission declaration through manifest merge. If your app’s target audience includes children, you must not transmit Android Advertising ID (AAID) from children or users of unknown age.

My app is not using the Advertising ID. Should i declare the AD_ID Permission in Manifest or not?

In earlier versions, we had Startup.cs class and we get configuration object as follows in the Startup file.

I'm trying to access appsettings.json in my Asp.net core v6 application Program.cs file, but in this version of .Net the Startup class and Program class are merged together and the using and another statements are simplified and removed from Program.cs. In this situation, How to access IConfiguration or how to use dependency injection for example ?

Edited : Here is my default Program.cs that Asp.net 6 created for me

After upgrading to android 12, the application is not compiling. It shows

"Manifest merger failed with multiple errors, see logs"

Error showing in Merged manifest:

Merging Errors: Error: android:exported needs to be explicitly specified for . Apps targeting Android 12 and higher are required to specify an explicit value for android:exported when the corresponding component has an intent filter defined. See https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/manifest/activity-element#exported for details. main manifest (this file)

I have set all the activity with android:exported="false". But it is still showing this issue.

My manifest file:

With the upgrade to Google Cloud SDK 360.0.0-0 i started seeing the following error when running the dev_appserver.py command for my Python 2.7 App Engine project.

With regard to the Log4j JNDI remote code execution vulnerability that has been identified CVE-2021-44228 - (also see references) - I wondered if Log4j-v1.2 is also impacted, but the closest I got from source code review is the JMS-Appender.

The question is, while the posts on the Internet indicate that Log4j 1.2 is also vulnerable, I am not able to find the relevant source code for it.

Am I missing something that others have identified?

Log4j 1.2 appears to have a vulnerability in the socket-server class, but my understanding is that it needs to be enabled in the first place for it to be applicable and hence is not a passive threat unlike the JNDI-lookup vulnerability which the one identified appears to be.

Is my understanding - that Log4j v1.2 - is not vulnerable to the jndi-remote-code execution bug correct?

• Apache Log4j Security Vulnerabilities

• Zero-day in ubiquitous Log4j tool poses a grave threat to the Internet

• Worst Apache Log4j RCE Zero day Dropped on Internet

• ‘Log4Shell’ vulnerability poses critical threat to applications using ‘ubiquitous’ Java logging package Apache Log4j

This blog post from Cloudflare also indicates the same point as from AKX....that it was introduced from Log4j 2!

Update #1 - A fork of the (now-retired) apache-log4j-1.2.x with patch fixes for few vulnerabilities identified in the older library is now available (from the original log4j author). The site is https://reload4j.qos.ch/. As of 21-Jan-2022 version 1.2.18.2 has been released. Vulnerabilities addressed to date include those pertaining to JMSAppender, SocketServer and Chainsaw vulnerabilities. Note that I am simply relaying this information. Have not verified the fixes from my end. Please refer the link for additional details.

I just upgraded an environment with nrwl from angular version 11 to 12 with two angular applications and several libraries. After update when I try to compile using optimization settings:

angular.json

In vuejs2 app having select input with rather big options list it breaks design of my page on extra small devices. Searching in net I found “size” property, but that not what I I need : I want to have dropdown selection, which is the default. Are there some other decision, maybe with CSS to set max-height of dropdown selection area.

Modeified PART # 1: I made testing demo page at http://photographers.my-demo-apps.tk/sel_test it has 2 select inputs with custom design and events as in this example link How to Set Height for the Drop Down of Select box and following workaround at js fiddle: