|
I have found a lot of answers over net but none of them worked for me.
I have,
1) Windows 7 64-bit
2) Visual Studio 2012
3) .net framework 4.5
4) libemgucv-windows-universal-cuda-2.9.0.1922-beta.exe
5) OpenCV-2.4.7.exe
Please suggest me how to resolve this.
|
|
|
|
|
Please do not repost the same question.
Veni, vidi, abiit domum
|
|
|
|
|
Edit: Moved to thread below.
Veni, vidi, caecus
|
|
|
|
|
Basically you are trying to use a 32 bit DLL compiled as a 32 bit target inside an application that's running in 64 bit. You have two choices - give your application 32 bit affinity or give it a 64 bit version of the 32 bit Dlls.
To give your app 32 bit affinity, you need to do the following steps for every project in your solution.
In Solution Explorer, right click on your project name and select Properties from the bottom of the list (or just select the project name and click Alt+Enter). You will now see the project property pages. Select the Build tab and change the Platform target from Any CPU to x86.
|
|
|
|
|
I have found a lot of answers over net but none of them worked for me.
I have,
1) Visual Studio 2012
2) .net framework 4.5
3) libemgucv-windows-universal-cuda-2.9.0.1922-beta.exe
4) OpenCV-2.4.7.exe
5) Windows 7 64-bit
Please suggest me how to resolve this.
|
|
|
|
|
1. What is the actual code that causes the exception, including context.
2. What exception is being thrown.
Veni, vidi, abiit domum
|
|
|
|
|
Please provide further explanation.
We can't view your screen, nor can we access your HDD (we are not the NSA, after all).
Please provide us the following information:
- Full exception text
- Inner exception text
- Code Snippet where the exception happens, with sufficient additional code around it in order to understand what may be going on
- Maybe it happens because of the beta version? -> Verify with stable version of libemgucv
Veni, vidi, caecus
|
|
|
|
|
The type initializer for 'Emgu.CV.CvInvoke' threw an exception.
Message : An attempt was made to load a program with an incorrect format. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8007000B)
|
|
|
|
|
An "incorrect format" error usually means you're trying to load a 32-bit assembly in a 64-bit program, or vice-versa.
There are also some suggestions in this QA thread[^] and this SO question[^].
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
<b>Finally problem resolved.</b>
Just uninstalled emgucv, fixed dll's using ccleaner (as played with dll's a lot), system rerstarted, installed emgucv 2.2 (I guess most stable version).
|
|
|
|
|
i have three questions , any help will be appreciated
How to simply explain 3 tier archetecture before an interview panel ?
How the data is passing between different layers in real time ?
What is the difference between 3 tier and n-tier archetecture ?
|
|
|
|
|
Try typing each one of those phrases into Google. You should get several really great links there.
|
|
|
|
|
I an worried about hackers breaking into my program. I was wondering if I could separate my program into three parts on three different computers:
1. Has access to the internet and collects data and transfers data to the second computer.
2. Analyzes data and sends results to part three.
3. Has access to the internet and returns results.
I do not want any data getting to the second computer, except the specific data and in one direction only. The same goes for part 2.
Is this possible? How would I go about doing this?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Google using the following search term and read up.
security demilitarized zone
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your input, I read about Security DMZ and it doesn't appear to be as secure as I would like it to be. I want something that is absolutely full proof.
|
|
|
|
|
MAW30 wrote: I want something that is absolutely full proof.
Yeah, so does everyone else. Too bad it doesn't exist. If companies that spend millions of dollars on their infrastructure can't keep the bad guys out, what makes you think you can?
|
|
|
|
|
100 % security can't be achieved since the first encryption method was "hacked".
But you can achieve a high security Level by encrypting the transferred Messages.
For example using a private and a public key with common encryption Standards like
Diffie Hellman encryption. If you want to be sure to have a good encryption use mathematical
formulas with elliptic curves and encrypt with the calculated prime.
But for all of this you Need knowledge in cryptography.
Protecting the Hardware your program is running on also enhances your security.
But i'd say more than 80%-90% secure is impissible without an overextended amount
of work which might not be worth the data you want to protect.
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, if I build my own firewall and only allow specific data to enter, can I block everything else.
I want to have my code on a separate computer which only allows one direction of data so my code can not be copied. Any results go to the next computer allowing only certain types of data, then sent to the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, don't get me wrong, but what makes you that paranoid?
Setting up a firewall like mcaffee or kaspersky, yeah understandable.
Is it a Company Network? There you should have a firewall already!
by configuring the firewall you can block several Inputs yes, but mainly datatransfer
uses http,ftp port or anythink like that, so the blocking of incoming stuff depends on open ports.
Yes you might block ip's but thats inefficent and costs 2 much time.
The Point i want to say is, that the attacker intrudes your system through your open ports, if you only opend http (i think 80) and you are currently not using it, he can do!
The next i don't quite understand, is the copying code?
Your application runs as an .exe file? So how should someone steal that code? This might only work if he steals your .exe file.
The important thing for you should be to secure that your data, Input and Output is safe.
That is what most hackers like to steal.
For example, an application for calculating super secret stuff is worthless without the Input data to begin calculation.
But if you want to encapsule everything then set up:
-Internet Access Server that Forwards the data
-Transfer Server for communication between your servers
-application Hardware that runs your code
-database Server for the data
I personally think that this is unnecessary for private persons.
in a Company this is as i know it the usual Network structure
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks,
"Your application runs as an .exe file? So how should someone steal that code? This might only work if he steals your .exe file."
This is what I am worried about I understand that it is possible to download everything on your computer. Data coming and going I do not care about, I spent years developing the software, if it got into someone else's hands it will have been a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
|
Well in this case.
According to following Posts, do what they said.
A Firewall that meets your requirements would be any available like kaspersky or mcaffee, they got a lot Options to restrict Connections.
Other OS that might fit your restrictions are Linux os'es cause there you can adjust a lot of user restrictions and Settings 
But i really really wonder what might be so valuable to protect it like fort knox
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
MAW30 wrote: I want something that is absolutely full proof.
And I want to be king of the world. But there is absolutely no chance of either happening. Well to be fair it is perhaps likely that I could be king of the world. But as for your desire - it isn't going to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Machine 2 should be behind a very strict firewall that opens only the port your application uses to receive and return data. Run it on a minimal OS without known security concerns Machine 1 and 3 should probably be the same one and it should open a connection to machine 2. Now your only access to machine 2 is your own protocol code for the data transfer so even if someone gets their hands on machine 1/3 they can't do anything more than send data to it (as long as you write your code correctly).
Of course in any real situation the security risk is not the technical setup but the people involved in writing, storing and maintaining the code that goes on machine 2.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks,
By what you wrote above it sound like data can travel in both directions, can I block data going in one direction, if not then machine 3 is unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
|
You need data to go into machine 2 and come out of it. I don't see what you're going to gain by requiring that to be through two separate connections.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
