Addsum web site and general info

Postings here will focus mainly on Advanced Accounting software updates, tips, and related topics. They will also include general comments relating to troubleshooting PC/Windows/network problems and may also include reference to our other software products and projects including any of our various utilities, or to the TAS Premier programming language. We considered setting up separate blogs for different topics so that users/others could subscribe to topics mostly aligned with their interests, but decided that it would be better to keep things simple since some topics cross over into others. We would nonetheless welcome your feedback/input in this regard. Our web site URL is www.addsuminc.com. Call us at 800-648-6258 or 801-277-9240. We also maintain www.advancedaccounting.us so that older Business Tools users in particular have a greater chance to find us. White list noreply@follow.it to ensure you receive notifications once you subscribe.

Friday, January 23, 2015

Quote message line enhancements (in Advanced Accounting)

Based on an end user request, we have added the ability for some basic formatting options of message lines when entering and printing a quote from Advanced Accounting 7i which will be available in the next release.   As a result, two new group boxes in the line item entry section have been added as outlined below.


QC-A Quote line item entry

The report output font size normally is 9pt and the larger T size will cause the message line output to instead be in 14pt.   Further, for both the regular and larger font sizes, formatting options can be selected that include bold (B), underlining (U), or both bold and underlined (BU).

When output, the body of the quote report output appears as follows:


QC quote output (total differs from image above due to changes made to the first line item prior to printing



When the larger text option is selected, the message line text is aligned with the product code column rather than with the product description to allow for the additional space required by the increased font size.   When sent to a printer, the output normally will match the preview as above.   Conversions to PDF files (available directly within the software and which automatically occurs when choosing to e-mail a quote), can result in slight differences.  For example, if the underline option is chosen, the underline may extend all the way to the right and not just under the text.

Message lines can be "attached" to notes rather than just single text strings.  (This is true also in connection with purchase orders and sales orders/invoices).   When these new formatting options are applied, notes attached to message lines will be formatted accordingly (see image above for an example of a note that has been selected to be in a larger text size and in bold).    A better way to describe this kind of message line might be a message line note, or a message line that is "transformed" to a free-standing note that is not attached to product/item code (notes that instead are truly "attached" to product code lines will continue to print as they have in the past and are unchanged).

These new options allow the user to emphasize certain conditions or contingencies that often apply when providing estimates.    These same options could be added to sales orders/invoices and to purchase orders in the future depending on end user interest.




















Wednesday, January 21, 2015

AccuWage Submitter EIN and Employer/Agent EIN matches alert


When testing 2014 electronic file W-2 submissions, the SSA's AccuWage software may provide this alert:





This is a non-critical alert or warning message.

If you are submitting a file on behalf of your own company, then the Submitter EIN and Employer/Agent EIN are in fact going to be the same.   Nothing in that event is wrong.

In an era where employers are being encouraged to upload their information electronically, it is somewhat peculiar for end users to encounter this sort of warning which presumably is designed more to help tax practitioners catch mistakes prior to submitting files on behalf of others.


Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Actian releases Pervasive 12: first look

The latest version of Pervasive (informally "Btrieve") was released on or about December 17, 2014.

Btrieve/Pervasive record manager engines have been the data interface backbone of choice for both Advanced Accounting (and earlier "Books") as well as versions of the TAS 4GL integrated development environment since the late 1980's. A number of other accounting software and multi-user database systems also continue to rely on the speed and robustness provided by these engines, a key feature of which has been expandability and true client-server support.

Version 11 was released in September of 2010 and remains in widespread use.

Important note:  Pervasive v12 will no longer support XP Pro nor Windows 2003 Server.

Actian now owns Pervasive and here is their product availability notice:



FAQ's:



Download page:

http://www.pervasive.com/database/Home/Products/PSQLv12.aspx

Hardware requirements are the same for both versions 11 and 12.

It is expected that product support and updates for version 11 will continue until June 30, 2015.

There is currently no rush for existing users to migrate to version 12.  It will primarily be of interest for new users, users who are on older versions and especially pre-v10 systems who will now likely want to migrate to v12 rather than v11, and users who need to expand their license counts.

One feature of the new version is an interesting defragmenter that can be run while the files are open (see screen shot at end).

Other currently outlined features may be of little to no benefit for existing v11 users.

First look:

As an initial test, we installed the workgroup engine on a desktop Windows 7 PC (32-bit O/S, SP1) and also on an ASUS Transformer Book running Windows 8.1 (32-bit version).     Both installations went very smoothly, and with no issues.  The workgroup engine can be installed as an application or as a service.  Most users will want to install as a service.  We installed one as a service, and one as an application.





In both cases (and has been our experience with essentially all prior Pervasive installations since version 7), both PC's had to be re-booted before our test applications would run (the installation does not tell the end user however that a re-boot is necessary, but this is something we have routinely advised).    After re-booting and after some initial testing with two completely different applications running on each of the PC's, they both appear to be working exactly as expected and as they have with prior versions of Pervasive/Btrieve.





On one of the test PC's, we noticed something different than in the past:  the presence of an older Btrieve 6.15 engine in the application folder did not create a problem with the Pervasive 12 engine running.  And in fact, we were able to run one application using Pervasive v12 and another application using Btrieve 6.15 at the same time.  This previously has not been possible.

The installation default group now is Actian PSQL 12 rather than Pervasive.

Installed Pervasive tools such as the License Administrator, Gateway Locator and Rebuild look substantially similar as does the Pervasive Control Center (PCC).  User data files will not have to be rebuilt, and the "highest" Pervasive internal file format remains at 9.5 as it has since the Pervasive 9.x series.

Unfortunately Pervasive v12 continues to by default enable limiting data file sizes to 2GB before they "segment" which was a limitation imposed by Windows NT but which has not been an issue in newer Windows operating systems.  Segmented data files cause various potential problems including how multi-company file naming extensions are deployed within TAS-based systems as well as can create potential backup, data integrity, reindex,  manual file deletion/renaming and other file handling issues, and therefore is not supported.   Pervasive users will need to uncheck this option so that segmentation never occurs (and this needs to be done in the event of a re-installation as well).

 Pervasive v12 - uncheck Limit segment size to 2GB
(same action needs to be taken prior versions)


And, all supported protocols continue to be enabled by default in version 12.  Most users only need TCP/IP and non-used protocols should be removed by unchecking them (see below).

Pervasive v12 - removed unneeded communication protocols
(same as in prior versions)



Some final random thoughts:

We would be hopeful that the addition of the defragmenter feature might also mean that status code 46 problems resulting from access of the files from outside of Pervasive's handling might also be reduced or eliminated, but we suspect it will not.  The defragmenter however may prove to be a very useful diagnostics and general analysis tool.

With server version purchases, Actian is offering for free (but as a separate download) its "Actian Analytics Platform for PSQL."   This in part shows the influence of the new product owner and future directions that the product might take.  This tool looks interesting as well, but is not something we have yet looked at.

The installer update which automatically detects the bitness of client operating systems could backfire if installation and connectivity problems related to the 64-bit Pervasive client engine continues to occur with 64-bit client operating systems.   With v11, users have had more success installing 32-bit clients on client-server systems even if the server install was 64-bit and even though the clients are running 64-bit operating systems.   If this remains the case and there is no way to install 32-bit components on a 64-bit PC, then this will be a potential problem.

The legacy 32-bit Btrieve 6.15 continues to work for older users who already had this engine on even Windows 8 systems (32-bit and 64-bit).   Compatibility issues with this old version (despite its limitations, and despite not having been officially supported by Pervasive since the late 1990's) remains far fewer than with any subsequent version.  And contrary to what might have been published elsewhere, it does run on 64-bit Windows 7 or Windows 8.   It is not however suited for more than a relatively few simultaneous uses and does not provide client-server support, and it requires higher local user privileges than the newer engine.  Its tiny footprint and its ability to "keep on ticking" however is quite admirable.

In any event, it appears that Pervasive v12 should be a smooth migration for prior Pervasive users; and for new users, preliminary indications are that it is a solid product.


New PSQL12 Defragmenter tool






















Tuesday, December 16, 2014

MSN messenger service going the way of the Dodo

Since the April 2013 retirement of  MSN messenger, also referred to as the Microsoft Messenger or as the Windows Live messenger (see announcement at http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/messenger/messenger-to-skype), it is remarkable that problems with MSN messenger live.com accounts have not occurred in a more widespread fashion sooner than now.

But sometime just in the past ten days or so, we noticed that our live.com account was no longer connecting via Zoho Chat.   We thought that maybe something had changed there or that we had installed something that was preventing the connection.  In Zoho Chat, it simply attempts to connect with the message 'Connecting . . . ' which remains on screen indefinitely with no error message or any indication as to what the issue is, nor any indication of a sign-in failure.





We had no difficulties logging into live.com which simply accesses browser-based mail.   We tried disabling/enabling the Zoho Chat settings with no change.

Proceeding to reinstall the latest version of a desktop instant messaging (IM) client we used to use, Pidgin, we still could not connect to the live.com account getting sometimes a "connection refused by server" response.

Investigating further, we finally stumbled on these helpful postings:

https://messengergeek.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/most-third-party-messenger-clients-have-gone-offline-temporarily/

and

https://messengergeek.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/microsoft-appears-to-be-pushing-messenger-to-http/

And also:

http://ismsndeadyet.com/

We tried linking a new live.com account using WLM protocol (instead of MSN protocol, and after installing the "msn-pecan" protocol - see first link above for the link and as recommended there) and that did not work, but then noticed the more recent indication that the HTTP method had to also be used.   That also did not seem to work;  we then changed the Server setting per one of the other recommendations to bn1.gateway.messenger.live.com.  The connection still did not at first seem to work, but shortly thereafter, and only after all of the foregoing changes, and for perhaps what will last for only a short period of time, we appear to have our "live.com" connection temporarily back (which we have used solely to communicate with a single customer that historically has used it)!

The MSN messenger service does appear to be on life support.


Postcript:  the day following, a connection via Pidgin could again not be established.  In the intervening period,  Microsoft made a change that required HTTPS that Pidgin does not currently support.  More details.

For connectivity with Pidgin, changing the server (with or without the HTTP method checked) to msn.messengergeek.com did not work for us on the 18th but as of the 19th was working again. But for how long this time?!











Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Avast's Browser Cleanup/Firefox nightmare bug fixed

Avast has finally fixed its disastrous Browser Cleanup/Firefox add-ons bug.

When your anti-virus software works against you in a manner almost as destructive as the worst virus, it is a reminder of how dangerous software updates can sometimes be, and also how  new and inadequately tested software features can lead to disaster.

As early as June of 2014 avast! users were reporting a serious problem with the Browser Cleanup (BCU) option and Firefox.   Avast was aware of the reports but could not find a problem with their code.  The reports however kept coming in.   Unfortunately, we were one of the victims in September of 2014 after many other reports had been filed.  And more came after.

Not until November 17, 2014 did Avast finally find a solution and fix the problem which was not announced in the relevant forum until November 24 in which the Avast representative posted:

"Reason was a bug in the BCU which slipped through QA because it happened in some rare conditions only.  After the first reports from our customer it took us quite some time to reproduce and fix the problem."

As a software developer, we certainly understand the problem of needing to reproduce an issue in order to be able to fix it.  In this case however it wasn't a single customer, but many.   And the consequences were dire:  the Browser Cleanup literally went completely rogue when told to cleanup Firefox add-ons within at least a fair number of PC systems (and was not limited to a particular operating system) under some set of conditions, and due to the bug would proceed to delete thousands of local files seemingly indiscriminately in a fashion that can only be likened to a destructive virus.   In our case it reported two never used add-ons as having bad reputations; we did not need them, but made the mistake of telling Browser Cleanup to remove them.  A problem like this was so severe that Avast should have escalated the reports to the highest priority and remoted into systems that were having the issue in order to duplicate and resolve it.

In our case it removed a Delphi 7 program files subdirectory and subfolders completely involving some 5,877 files. It removed Winamp.  It removed Firefox.  It somehow removed avast! itself with 19 small BIN files marked as read only remaining.  It removed CrashPlan.  It removed OpenOffice.  It removed Malwarebytes.  And more.  And these details were reported to Avast.  And it would have removed even more had we not realized something was wrong and shut down the PC.  ("Removed" is intended here to mean deleted.  Folder names remained but files within those folders were all or mostly gone.)  Fortunately the Windows system folders were not impacted.

We were able to recover the missing files but only after hours of work.   The PC thankfully was soon again operational after a day or so of high stress, but there was still no response to our forum posting and no resolution for users.  And others have not been as lucky.

For Avast to blame their QA (Quality Assurance) testers for missing this problem is patently unfair.  Any code that could have had ANY chance of being as malicious as this was should have been foreseen by any experienced programmer.   Whenever you are DELETING local files from a user's system and are using some sort of recursive logic as must have been the case here in view of how the BCU bug was behaving (when the problem was triggered, the removal tool was clearly jumping around the local subdirectory structure of the end user's PC and literally ravaging their local file system) and this should have been caught by the programming staff in the first place.  The blame here must be placed at the source:  the programmer(s).

Programmers have the responsibility to substantially test their programs and not expect their QA departments (or end users) to catch them to the greatest extent possible.  They should also safeguard potentially dangerous code that might otherwise not be capable of easily testing, and/or that a tester might not be aware of.

One commenter indicated that since the users involved were using the "free" version that their expectations should be accordingly low, and tried to shift the blame to users utilizing the free version.  Wrong.  If the software missed reporting a potential virus (none of the anti-virus packages ever detect everything) that might be one thing.   But users do have a right to expect that even free software from a supposedly trusted source will not devastate their system, and clearly Avast is very much culpable in this regard.   Their software, free or not, was never authorized by the end user to delete local files beyond the Firefox add-ons.  Their free software is offering to protect, not harm, an end user system.  Viruses are also free but most users do not intentionally install them.  So here the very software that is being promoted as helping you to protect your PC instead becomes your worst nightmare.   And their BCU likely was behaving the same way with respect to Firefox (under some undisclosed conditions), whether paid for or used as part of the free version.   So this issue of free vs. not free is moot.

And to reiterate:  our PC was never infected with a virus or with malware of any kind other than the avast! Browser Cleanup software, a newer option we don't ever plan to use again and which was enabled by default, and is was one a suite of new things added to the product that is hard to categorize as something desirable or needed.  Its assessment of things that have a "bad reputation" is also certainly questionable.

Some screen shots below show some of the sequence of the initial reports of the problem and the ultimate posting indicating that in fact the problem had been tracked down and resolved by Avast are contained below.

End user beware.


Clips from the avast! user forum relating to this topic:











Sunday, November 30, 2014

Do you want to run this file?

Starting with XP Pro SP2, program and other files downloaded from the web from many of the more commonly used web browsers are individually flagged and subsequently carry a security warning when an attempt is made to open or run (execute) them.  While initially helpful, the warning may persist when flagged executables or equivalent are opened or run from a networked drive, which most users find to be annoying and unnecessary.   In an era where users are increasingly being bombarded by warnings and messages of all kinds, excessive warnings that users continually have to routinely bypass can then lead to users ignoring error messages of true importance.

When an executable file associated with the application is run from a local drive, users have the option to trust that specific application or even all content from a given publisher, and regardless of whether the UAC (User Account Control, applying to Vista and above) is enabled or not.

Open File- Security Warning example, executable downloaded via Internet Explorer 8, Win 7, run from local drive:




But the same is not true when running the same or a similar executable from across an internal network (i.e. the local intranet) .  The “Do you want to run this program?” message occurs in that case without end and without an option to not always ask this question before opening the given file which is available when running from a local drive.

Open File- Security Warning example, same executable downloaded via Internet Explorer 8, Win 7, run from network drive (note the lack of an option to not always "ask" before opening the file):




Do you really want Windows to be constantly asking you if you really, truly want to run a program that you launch every day across a network drive?

Most users do not need nor want the aggravation and annoyance of this yet additional warning message, particularly if they are running the program from an established desktop shortcut and even if the program is located on a non-local drive, since that is after all one of the purposes of a network drive.

Fortunately there are some options available to eliminate this security warning that carry little to no security threat.  (Always discuss the ramifications of changes to your system security with your IT support.)

While this issue can be dealt with by setting group policies (particularly on larger systems and/or those that have in-house IT support) or by trying to manually delete the zone identifiers that may be associated with the file, the approach we stumbled upon quite a few years ago and which is outlined below is typically the simplest and most effective.

From the Control Panel, proceed to Internet Options then click on the Security tab.   With XP Pro you will find Internet Options as a top level option.  With Windows 7 and Windows 8, first select Network and Internet and then  Internet Options.   (Note: you can also access Internet Options from within Internet Explorer itself.  Launch IE, click on Tools - or if you can't see the menu try ALT-F then Tools or ALT-T to go directly to Tools - then choose Internet Options at the end of the menu or just press O and finally click on the Security tab.  Yet another method is to run inetcpl.cpl.)

Click on the Security tab.   Then select/click on Local intranet.   Then click on the Sites button.  When the Local intranet screen appears, click on the Advanced button.




Under “Add this website to the zone:”  type in the drive mapped letter/path or UNC path to the network drive.  It can include the actual executable file; however, that is not important and the executable name will be stripped off.   Despite the reference to a “website” on this screen (the wording here referring to these local intranet paths solely as "websites" is wrong and confusing), what will be entered here is a locally shared network path on another networked PC.

We used to always uncheck the "Automatically detect intranet network" option and then also uncheck "Include all network paths" option; however, adding a "site" to the zone is supposed to take precedence over the general Local intranet settings. Sometimes we have found that in order for the security warning to go away we have nonetheless still had to uncheck the "Include all network paths" option.  So if your warning message persists after following the above, try making those additional changes.

Click on Add and in the "Websites" list box  you will see a reference such as the one above or with the server name, e.g. file://computername (where computername is the name of your in-house server or other PC with a shared drive that you want to add to this zone).   Click on Close and then OK on each of the prior forms/screens.

Repeat on each PC in your network.

You do not have to restart or re-boot for these settings to take place.  Exit out of Internet Options (or out of Internet Explorer if the changes are made there) and then try your desktop icon to see if the warning message is gone.

If the same executable file is replaced in the future by a downloaded file via a browser that attaches a zone identifier or is replaced by a file from somewhere else on your system that has an attached identifier, then even with the security options above in place and regardless of how the UAC has been set, the user will see a warning like the one below.

Open File- Security Warning example, same exact executable re-copied from a local drive where the "Always ask" had not been unchecked, or which had been re-downloaded via IE, with now local intranet settings referencing the PC mapped as drive S: in place:





This warning then is identical to an executable first run on a user's local drive and notice that now
the user will similarly be able to choose to open it in the future without the warning (but still with the ability to at least verify that is it from the same publisher but not much more).  This does not guarantee that the file is completely safe but that job is best left to other procedures and protocols.

A better solution than the above would be to allow end users to "trust" individual files including executables regardless of their location (and especially if the executable has been digitally signed and therefore involves a known/verified publisher) and then using file verification (such as a file hash which would need to take into account alternate data streams associated with the file) technology to detect changes in a file that could then trigger a new one-time warning (with more information about the nature of the changes that might be helpful) to appear should a change occur that a user with no additional privileges would be allowed to then stop from continuing to occur as in the last example above.   This could be set as a property of the icon by a user with administrative privileges, i.e. "trust this file."   This is also not a perfect solution but an approach of this nature in combination with other security software and related protocols and procedures would provide a better balance between security and ease of use.

Some additional technical details:  Zone identifiers are alternate data streams (ADS) which came into existence with Windows NT (first introduced in 1993) and are sometimes referred to as NTFS ("new technology file system") streams.  These allow the same exact file to be associated with more than a single data stream and only occur on NTFS drives. These additional data streams however are not readily viewable without special tools such as Microsoft's Streams (a Sysinternals utility) or now with the Windows PowerShell.  Unfortunately malware can also take advantage of these alternate data streams, but ADS features are built into systems that use NTFS and cannot be disabled.

Internet Zones discussed in the context of Internet Explorer 11:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd346863.aspx

Security Zones:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd361896.aspx

Note these definitions/discussion from the above:

Local intranet zone:  "The Local intranet zone includes all sites inside an organization's firewall (for computers connected to a local network). "

Include all network paths option:  "Include all network paths (UNCs). Network paths (for example, \\servername\sharename\file.txt) are typically used for local network content that should be included in the Local intranet zone. If some of your network paths should not be in the Local intranet zone, clear this check box and then use other means to designate the Local intranet zone membership. In certain Common Internet File System (CIFS) configurations, for example, it is possible for a network path to reference Internet content. "

Firefox browser: Firefox had an option in its about:config settings to remove zone information when files were downloaded in a number of older releases.  The setting which could be set to false was:

browser.download.saveZoneInformation 

However that has since been removed in the latest Firefox releases and can no longer be set.  Since January of 2014, Firefox only marks executable file types with a zone identifier indicating Internet origin.

Scanners: A free scanner that can detect otherwise invisible alternate data streams (you can also choose whether to show or ignore "safe" ADS content and you can also remove either kind including the safe type which triggers the "Do you want to run file?" message):

http://www.pointstone.com/products/ADS-Scanner/

There are other free scanners such as Microsoft's Streams:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897440






Wednesday, October 15, 2014

CryptoLocker ransomware: educate your e-mail users before it is too late

Ransomware is not new but in the past year has entered into an entirely new era with the advent of the CryptoLocker virus. Just in the last two days in different parts of the country two of our accounting software users have encountered this virus and it has created havoc. Neither paid any ransom but rather were able to thwart the virus by taking fast action; nonetheless it caused an interruption in business of these users along with technical support expenses, and considerable angst.

Once a system is infected, the virus spreads very quickly and easily jumps around and onto shared network drives. On one system it jumped to a server drive from a client PC that only had basic, non-administrative user rights and within less than two hours had copied its ransom notice files into every folder on that drive. So any PC (or other device) connected to your network server could spread it.

Additional morphs of CryptoLocker have also recently appeared.

Your anti-virus program may not be able to detect CryptoLocker or its morphs. Therefore, it is critical to focus on the education of your end users NOT to click on links or open e-mail attachments from unknown, untrusted or suspicious sources that may be disguised in any number of ways.

It is not clear whether the virus is able to encrypt files that are in active use; but it does not seem to discriminate in terms of what files it goes after. One user's first notification was when a simple JPEG file could not be loaded and was essentially corrupted by the virus.

General background information about the CryptoLocker trojan can be found on Wikipedia.

A Virus Bulletin Ltd. blog mentions a recent tool that may be able to provide the decryption phrase in some circumstances as a result of a joint effort between FireEye and Fox-IT (the PDF maker). See:


Some further helpful technical details:


As is discussed in greater detail in a related blog, lack of end user awareness of potential serious infections as a result of careless e-mail use is a significant part of the problem. And hackers know this.

Recovery requires an off-line backup that was made prior to the infection. So in addition to strongly reminding end users about e-mail and related dangers, revisiting your backup strategies is also in order.