Download files from a sharepoint document library that has exceeded the listview threshold

I’m trying to download all documents from a SharePoint library that has more than 200K documents and has obviously exceeded the listview threshold and I haven’t been able to find a script that will allow me to download these files. Is there a way to download all of these files using Powershell to a file share?

Filtering Sharepoint Server 2013 list with multiple “OR” column view filters above the 5000 item threshold

I have a list that’s butting up against the 5000 item threshold and I’ve added a couple dummy items so I can experiment with the threshold before I cross over with real data. My list is structured so that each item is unique (enforced) but can be assigned to multiple projects. Then I create a view filter for each project number which displays (and lets me manipulate) only the items assigned to that project.

The 256 character limit on “single line of text” columns has forced me to create several “project” columns over the years and many of my items have entries in each column. Each project view uses a filter on all project columns, so “Project1 contains (project number), or Project2 contains (project number), or Project3 contains (project number), etc”. Each view returns about 50-100 items, so it should work fine with Sharepoint’s large site rules.

This scheme works perfectly under 5000 items, but as soon as I cross over it errors out. I’ve indexed all project columns but it still doesn’t work. I think it may have to do with using multiple “or” conditions on the view, but I haven’t found any official guidance or workarounds yet.

Does anybody have any suggestions on how to handle this? It seems like I either need a new way to filter the list or some way of combining all of the project columns into one. I’d love to consolidate all project numbers into a multi line column, but apparently those can’t be used for filtering.

I still have the nuclear option of opening up the threshold to some number that I’ll probably never hit, but I would prefer to do it correctly. I’m the only user of this list, so I really don’t care about the resource hit as long as the list still functions.


sharepoint online – Querying document library (which contain more than 5,000 documents) using FolderServerRelativeUrl will raise error “exceeds the list view threshold”

I have a document library which contain 6,000 ++ items, and i wrote the following code inside a remote event receiver to get the documents which are inside certain folder using FolderServerRelativeUrl, as follow:-

ListItemCollectionPosition position = null;
      CamlQuery camlQuery6 = new CamlQuery();
      camlQuery6.ViewXml = @"<View Scope='Recursive'><Query></Query><RowLimit>5000</RowLimit></View>";//string.Format("<View Scope="RecursiveAll"><Query><Where><Neq><FieldRef Name='ID' /><Value Type='Text'>{0}</Value></Neq></Where></Query><RowLimit>{1}</RowLimit></View>", "0", "3000");
      camlQuery6.ListItemCollectionPosition = position;
      camlQuery6.FolderServerRelativeUrl = context.Web.ServerRelativeUrl + "/ArchDocs/" + currentFilingSystemItem("DealName").ToString();

      ListItemCollection collListItem6 = context.Web.GetList(context.Web.ServerRelativeUrl + "/ArchDocs").GetItems(camlQuery6);
      context.Load(collListItem6, items => items.Include(
                                                  item => item.Id,
                                                  item => item("FileDirRef"),
                                                  item => item("Title"),
                                                   ), items => items.ListItemCollectionPosition);
      position = collListItem6.ListItemCollectionPosition;

              foreach (ListItem listItem in collListItem6) // collect the items we found in this chuck of searched items
while (position != null);
foreach (ListItem item in foundListItems)


but my above code will raise this error, although i am using paging which should allow me to query large document libraries :-

The attempted operation is prohibited because it exceeds the list view threshold enforced by the administrator.

any advice on this please? Thanks

Cryptography – DDoS: Calculation of the server threshold for requests

I want to know how to calculate the number of requests and / or the speed of requests that a hacker needs to compromise a server's hard drives. This could theoretically give someone administrative control and full access to information.

That's not how it works. Server security is not like a closed door or wall where you "only" have to hammer it long and hard enough until it breaks.

The hacker can neither "compromise a server's hard drive" nor "gain administrative control" by simply sending many "requests" (whatever you mean, HTTP requests?). The hacker can slow down or make the system inaccessible or crash or fill the hard drive due to many log messages … but it does not give administrator access. To do this, there must be an actual security error or an incorrect configuration.

Development – How we can get an item by ID if the list exceeds the threshold

In my client-side object model CSOM code, I use the following 2 methods to retrieve an element by ID, either using CAML, for example: –

CamlQuery camlQuery0 = new CamlQuery();
camlQuery0.ViewXml = string.Format("{0}", "6001");
ListItemCollection collListItem0 = context.Web.GetList(context.Web.ServerRelativeUrl + "/lists/" + "CustomSettings").GetItems(camlQuery0);
items => items.Include(
                        item => item("Title"),
                        item => item("SettingValue")

or with GetItemById: –

ListItem currentItem = context.Web.GetList(context.Web.ServerRelativeUrl + "/lists/" + listname).GetItemById("6001");

Can I use these two methods to retrieve an item if the underlying list exceeds the threshold? Suppose I want to receive the item with ID = 6001. Can i do that?

Consensus – When did GDP16 exceed the 550/1000 threshold?

BIP16 says on February 01, 2012, if more than 550 of the previous 1000 blocks contain "/ P2SH /" in the coin base, BIP16 will be activated on February 15, 2012 (source).

BIP16 was later revised. On March 15, 2012, if more than 550 of the previous 1000 blocks contained "/ P2SH /" in the coin base, BIP16 will be activated on April 1, 2012 (source).

After searching the coin base of each block, it looks as if the threshold of 550 blocks was reached on March 16, 2012, 10:07:16 p.m. at block height 171,455. How / why was it assumed that this exceeded the cut-off date threshold, even though it was after the valuation date on March 15, 2012, although this was actually not the case?

Any help appreciated. It makes me crazy 🙂

TCP self-regulating Synack timeout under Linux if the syn backlog exceeds the threshold. Why?

I am studying Dos attacks and especially the Syn flood.
I replicate the attack on local Debian VMs.

Attack VM:

Target VM:

  • Python TCP server on the port 8080, listen(Arrears = 13)
  • sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_syncookies=0 (deactivated)
  • sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog=128 (Default value)

To monitor the half-open connections now, I use:

watch -n 0.1 "ss -o state syn-recv sport = :8080"

I'm starting to flood the destination with lots of syn packages.

  • What I originally expected: up to 128 half-open connections (size of the syn backlog).
  • What I see instead: up to 13 half-open connections.

Question 1 / curiosity:
If the acceptance queue is empty, why should you add only 13 connections to the syn backlog? Should not be the variable tcp_max_syn_backlog, which decides the size of the syn backlog and the synchronous backlog listen Argument that decides the size of the acceptor?
(Verified by Wireshark, only 13 connections receive the Synack response)

On with my problem,

  • What I then expected: 13 half-open connections during the entire timeout (5 Synack retries with exponential timeout with a total timeout of approx. 60 seconds).
  • What I see instead: 6 connections (half of the backlog) go through the entire time limit of 61 seconds, the other 7 connections are interrupted after the second retry, with a total time limit of only about 2 seconds.

I tried different values ​​of the backlog and the connections that go through the whole process are always half, at least 4.
I have received this information from RFC4987 that talks about syn flood protection:

3.3. Reduction of the SYN-RECEIVED timer

Another defense that can be implemented quickly shortens the timeout
Period between receipt of a SYN and harvesting the created TCB due to lack
of progress. Decrease the timer that limits the lifespan of TCBs
in SYN-RECEIVED is also incorrect. While a shorter timer stops
Attempted connection attempts remain in the backlog for as long as possible
and make room for legitimate connections earlier, it can
Prevent some of the legitimate connections from being fully established
established. This is the only reason that this tactic is ineffective
requires the attacker to linearly increase the blocking frequency
proportional amount.
This timer reduction is sometimes implemented
in response to exceeding a threshold in the backlog or
a certain rate of SYN reception.

Now everything is clearer. However,
Question (s) 2

Why is the RFC the only source that talks about this feature I found? And is there a way to disable it? Is there any way to determine the threshold?

Finally I tried to sit down

  • Python TCP server on the port 8080, Listen(Arrears = 1000)
  • sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_syncookies=0 (deactivated)
  • sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog=13 (low value)

And I found that in this case, all 13 half-open connections go through the entire timeout without the reduction going beyond half. Why is there such a difference?