Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (9691)

• Find a great Google Tag Manager alternative in Matomo Tag Manager

  29 avril 2020, par Joselyn Khor — Analytics Tips, Development, Marketing, Plugins
  If you’re looking for a tag management system that rivals Google’s, then Matomo Tag Manager is a great Google Tag Manager alternative that takes your tracking to the next level.

  What’s a tag manager ?

  If you’re not familiar with Google Tag Manager or Matomo Tag Manager – they’re both free tag management systems that let you manage all your website code snippets (tags) in one place. 

  Tags are typically JavaScript code or HTML that lets you integrate various features into your site in just a few clicks. For example : analytics codes, conversion tracking codes, exit popups and surveys, remarketing codes, social widgets, affiliates, and ads. With a tag manager, you get to easily look into and manage these different tracking codes.

  Why use a tag manager ?

  Tag management systems are game changers because they let you track important data more effectively by easily adding code snippets (tags) to your website. 

  By not needing to hard code each individual code you also save time. Rather than waiting for someone to make tag changes and to deploy your website, you can make the changes yourself without needing the technical expertise of a developer.

  Why is Matomo Tag Manager a great Google Tag Manager alternative ?

   Matomo Tag Manager is a great Google Tag Manager alternative. Not only does it let you manage all your tracking and marketing tags in one place, it also offers less complexity and more flexibility. 

  By tagging your website and using Matomo Tag Manager alongside Matomo Analytics, you can collect much more data than you’d be able to otherwise. 

  A bonus to using Matomo is the privacy and data ownership aspect. With Matomo you also get the added peace of mind that comes with 100% data ownership and privacy protection. You will never be left wondering what’s happening to your data. Rest assured knowing you’re doing the best to protect user privacy, while getting useful insights to improve your website. 

  And since Matomo Tag Manager is the one of the best alternatives to Google Tag Manager, you’ll gain more than you lose by having full confidence that your data is yours to own.

  

  Three key benefits of using Matomo Tag Manager :

  • Empowers you to deploy and manage your own tags
    This takes the hassle out of needing a web developer to hard code and edit every tag on your website. Now you can deploy tracking code on chosen pages and track various data yourself. 

  • Open up endless possibilities on data tracking
    Dig a lot deeper to track analytics, conversions, and more. Now you can implement advanced tracking solutions without needing to pay an external source. 

  • Save time and create your own impact
    With limited resources you certainly don’t want to be wasting any time having to go back and forth with an external party over what tags to add or take away. An over-dependence on web developers or agencies carrying out tag management for you, stalls growth and experimentation opportunities. With a tag management system you have the convenience of inserting your own tags and getting to a desired outcome faster. You won’t have to forgo tracking opportunities because now it’s in your hands.

  Next step : free tag manager training

• Writing A Dreamcast Media Player

  6 janvier 2017, par Multimedia Mike — Sega Dreamcast

  I know I’m not the only person to have the idea to port a media player to the Sega Dreamcast video game console. But I did make significant progress on an implementation. I’m a little surprised to realize that I haven’t written anything about it on this blog yet, given my propensity for publishing my programming misadventures.

  
  
  

  This old effort had been on my mind lately due to its architectural similarities to something else I was recently brainstorming.

  Early Days
  Porting a multimedia player was one of the earliest endeavors that I embarked upon in the multimedia domain. It’s a bit fuzzy for me now, but I’m pretty sure that my first exposure to the MPlayer project in 2001 arose from looking for a multimedia player to port. I fed it through the Dreamcast development toolchain but encountered roadblocks pretty quickly. However, this got me looking at the MPlayer source code and made me wonder how I could contribute, which is how I finally broke into practical open source multimedia hacking after studying the concepts and technology for more than a year at that point.

  Eventually, I jumped over to the xine project. After hacking on that for awhile, I remembered my DC media player efforts and endeavored to compile xine to the console. The first attempt was to simply compile the codebase using the Dreamcast hobbyist community’s toolchain. This is when I came to fear the multithreaded snake pit in xine’s core. Again, my memories are hazy on the specifics, but I remember the engine having a bunch of threading hacks with comments along the lines of “this code deadlocks sometimes, so on shutdown, monitor this lock and deliberately break it if it has been more than 3 seconds”.

  Something Workable
  Eventually, I settled on a combination of FFmpeg’s libavcodec library for audio and video decoders, xine’s demuxer library, and xine’s input API, combined with my own engine code to tie it all together along with video and output drivers provided by the KallistiOS hobbyist OS for Dreamcast. Here is a simple diagram of the data movement through this player :

  
  
  

  Details and Challenges
  This is a rare occasion when I actually got to write the core of a media player engine. I made some mistakes.

  xine’s internal clock ran at 90000 Hz. At least, its internal timestamps were all in reference to a 90 kHz clock. I got this brilliant idea to trigger timer interrupts at 6000 Hz to drive the engine. Whatever the timer facilities on the Dreamcast, I found that 6 kHz was the greatest common divisor with 90 kHz. This means that if I could have found an even higher GCD frequency, I would have used that instead.

  So the idea was that, for a 30 fps video, the engine would know to render a frame on every 200th timer interrupt. I eventually realized that servicing 6000 timer interrupts every second would incur a ridiculous amount of overhead. After that, my engine’s philosophy was to set a timer to fire for the next frame while beginning to process the current frame. I.e., when rendering a frame, set a timer to call back in 1/30th of a second. That worked a lot better.

  As I was still keen on 8-bit paletted image codecs at the time (especially since they were simple and small for bootstrapping this project), I got to use output palette images directly thanks to the Dreamcast’s paletted textures. So that was exciting. The engine didn’t need to convert the paletted images to a different colorspace before rendering. However, I seem to recall that the Dreamcast’s PowerVR graphics hardware required that 8-bit textures be twiddled/swizzled. Thus, it was still required to manipulate the 8-bit image before rendering.

  I made good progress on this player concept. However, a huge blocker for me was that I didn’t know how to make a proper user interface for the media player. Obviously, programming the Dreamcast occurred at a very low level (at least with the approach I was using), so there were no UI widgets easily available.

  This was circa 2003. I assumed there must have been some embedded UI widget libraries with amenable open source licenses that I could leverage. I remember searching and checking out a library named libSTK. I think STK stood for “set-top toolkit” and was positioned specifically for doing things like media player UIs on low-spec embedded computing devices. The domain hosting the project is no longer useful but this appears to be a backup of the core code.

  It sounded promising, but the libSTK developers had a different definition of “low-spec embedded” device than I did. I seem to recall that they were targeting something along with likes of a Pentium III clocked at 800 MHz with 128 MB RAM. The Dreamcast, by contrast, has a 200 MHz SH-4 CPU and 16 MB RAM. LibSTK was also authored in C++ and leveraged the Boost library (my first exposure to that code), and this all had the effect of making binaries quite large while I was trying to keep the player in lean C.

  Regrettably, I never made any serious progress on a proper user interface. I think that’s when the player effort ran out of steam.

  The Code
  So, that’s another project that I never got around to finishing or publishing. I was able to find the source code so I decided to toss it up on github, along with 2 old architecture outlines that I was able to dig up. It looks like I was starting small, just porting over a few of the demuxers and decoders that I knew well.

  I’m wondering if it would still be as straightforward to separate out such components now, more than 13 years later ?

  The post Writing A Dreamcast Media Player first appeared on Breaking Eggs And Making Omelettes.

• Heroic Defender of the Stack

  27 janvier 2011, par Multimedia Mike — Programming

  Problem Statement

  I have been investigating stack smashing and countermeasures (stack smashing prevention, or SSP). Briefly, stack smashing occurs when a function allocates a static array on the stack and writes past the end of it, onto other local variables and eventually onto other function stack frames. When it comes time to return from the function, the return address has been corrupted and the program ends up some place it really shouldn’t. In the best case, the program just crashes ; in the worst case, a malicious party crafts code to exploit this malfunction.

  Further, debugging such a problem is especially obnoxious because by the time the program has crashed, it has already trashed any record (on the stack) of how it got into the errant state.

  Preventative Countermeasure

  GCC has had SSP since version 4.1. The computer inserts SSP as additional code when the -fstack-protector command line switch is specified. Implementation-wise, SSP basically inserts a special value (the literature refers to this as the ’canary’ as in "canary in the coalmine") at the top of the stack frame when entering the function, and code before leaving the function to make sure the canary didn’t get stepped on. If something happens to the canary, the program is immediately aborted with a message to stderr about what happened. Further, gcc’s man page on my Ubuntu machine proudly trumpets that this functionality is enabled per default ever since Ubuntu 6.10.

  And that’s really all there is to it. Your code is safe from stack smashing by default. Or so the hand-wavy documentation would have you believe.

  Not exactly

  Exercising the SSP

  I wanted to see the SSP in action to make sure it was a real thing. So I wrote some code that smashes the stack in pretty brazen ways so that I could reasonably expect to trigger the SSP (see later in this post for the code). Here’s what I learned that wasn’t in any documentation :

  SSP is only emitted for functions that have static arrays of 8-bit data (i.e., [unsigned] chars). If you have static arrays of other data types (like, say, 32-bit ints), those are still fair game for stack smashing.

  Evaluating the security vs. speed/code size trade-offs, it makes sense that the compiler wouldn’t apply this protection everywhere (I can only muse about how my optimization-obsessive multimedia hacking colleagues would absolute freak out if this code were unilaterally added to all functions). So why are only static char arrays deemed to be "vulnerable objects" (the wording that the gcc man page uses) ? A security hacking colleague suggested that this is probably due to the fact that the kind of data which poses the highest risk is arrays of 8-bit input data from, e.g., network sources.

  The gcc man page also lists an option -fstack-protector-all that is supposed to protect all functions. The man page’s definition of "all functions" perhaps differs from my own since invoking the option does not have differ in result from plain, vanilla -fstack-protector.

  The Valgrind Connection

  "Memory trouble ? Run Valgrind !" That may as well be Valgrind’s marketing slogan. Indeed, it’s the go-to utility for finding troublesome memory-related problems and has saved me on a number of occasions. However, it must be noted that it is useless for debugging this type of problem. If you understand how Valgrind works, this makes perfect sense. Valgrind operates by watching all memory accesses and ensuring that the program is only accessing memory to which it has privileges. In the stack smashing scenario, the program is fully allowed to write to that stack space ; after all, the program recently, legitimately pushed that return value onto the stack when calling the errant, stack smashing function.

  Valgrind embodies a suite of tools. My idea for an addition to this suite would be a mechanism which tracks return values every time a call instruction is encountered. The tool could track the return values in a separate stack data structure, though this might have some thorny consequences for some more unusual program flows. Instead, it might track them in some kind of hash/dictionary data structure and warn the programmer whenever a ’ret’ instruction is returning to an address that isn’t in the dictionary.

  Simple Stack Smashing Code

  Here’s the code I wrote to test exactly how SSP gets invoked in gcc. Compile with ’gcc -g -O0 -Wall -fstack-protector-all -Wstack-protector stack-fun.c -o stack-fun’.

  stack-fun.c :

  PLAIN TEXT

  C :

  1. /* keep outside of the stack frame */
  2. static int i ;
  3.  
  4. void stack_smasher32(void)
  5. {
  6.  int buffer32[8] ;
  7.  // uncomment this array and compile without optimizations
  8.  // in order to force this function to compile with SSP
  9. // char buffer_to_trigger_ssp[8] ;
  10.  
  11.  for (i = 0 ; i <50 ; i++)
  12.   buffer32[i] = 0xA5 ;
  13. }
  14.  
  15. void stack_smasher8(void)
  16. {
  17.  char buffer8[8] ;
  18.  for (i = 0 ; i <50 ; i++)
  19.   buffer8[i] = 0xA5 ;
  20. }
  21.  
  22. int main()
  23. {
  24. // stack_smasher8() ;
  25.  stack_smasher32() ;
  26.  return 0 ;
  27. }

  The above incarnation should just produce the traditional "Segmentation fault". However, uncommenting and executing stack_smasher8() in favor of stack_smasher32() should result in "*** stack smashing detected *** : ./stack-fun terminated", followed by the venerable "Segmentation fault".

  As indicated in the comments for stack_smasher32(), it’s possible to trick the compiler into emitting SSP for a function by inserting an array of at least 8 bytes (any less and SSP won’t emit, as documented, unless gcc’s ssp-buffer-size parameter is tweaked). This has to be compiled with no optimization at all (-O0) or else the compiler will (quite justifiably) optimize away the unused buffer and omit SSP.

  For reference, I ran my tests on Ubuntu 10.04.1 with gcc 4.4.3 compiling the code for both x86_32 and x86_64.