ProFox June 2018

profox@leafe.com

38 participants
55 discussions

Re: String Reference to Object
by Gene Wirchenko 25 Feb '20

25 Feb '20

At 11:07 2018-02-15, Gene Wirchenko <genew(a)telus.net> wrote: >At 10:57 2018-02-15, "Fernando D. Bozzo" <fdbozzo(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>To talk with an example, if you have this: >> >>oObj = createobject("custom") >>reference = "oObj" >> >>The you have at least 3 options: >> >>1) The way you know => &reference..referredto >> >>2) Using evaluate => =Evaluate(reference + ".referredto") >> >>3) My preferred: Caching the object and then using it: >> >>oRef = Evaluate(reference) >>? oRef.refered1 >>? oRef.refered2 >>... > > I was hoping to avoid evaluate(), but your third way makes > sense. I will check if it works in all the contexts I am thinking > of. (I was using "object" and "reference" rather loosely.) Unfortunately, it does not work in my usual use case: as an alias. Example: use ccli where=evaluate("ccli") && Nope ? where.clcode Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko

9 9

Google API for Geocoding ... Again
by Dave Crozier 04 Feb '19

04 Feb '19

Fellow Gentlemen, I posted a request about doing geocoding requests to receive back a Lat/Long dataset for various addresses a few weeks ago and now find that Google do in fact provide a Geocoding service: https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geocoding/start The responses back from the requests are all JSON from a Java Script API run by Google. I have looked over Rick's Westwind site to try and get a start on using this method to get back a JSON response but seem to be getting nowhere fast. Anyone got any ideas on a simple & neat way of retrieving this data back using VFP programmatically? Either that or anyone know a free Geocoding site that would handle up to 100 name and address calls per day ideally by sending a text file and receiving one back which could be automated from the VFP end. Never even looked at Web services in anger before so it all seems a little baffling and terribly long winded at the moment unless I am missing something obvious. Note I don't want to have to drop into an intermediate program/language to accomplish this, if possible. Dave

9 23

[NF] Maybe THIS is the year for Linux....lol
by mbsoftwaresolutions＠mbsoftwaresolutions.com 09 Aug '18

09 Aug '18

http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/the-great-linux-game-25-years-and-m… How many times have they said "Maybe this year!?!?!"

4 6

Southwest Fox 2018: Super-Saver Deadline Approaches
by Rick Schummer 29 Jun '18

29 Jun '18

Registration for Southwest Fox 2018 has been open for a few weeks and there's less than a week until the Super-Saver Registration deadline. If you register (https://geekgatherings.com/Registration/) before the end of June, you save $125 and we'll throw in a pre-conference session worth $99. Not only that, but you'll be entered in the drawings for a scholarship (http://swfox.net/scholarship.aspx) that will reduce your cost even more and a license of Stonefield Query SDK, a $2,500 value. Check out the speakers (http://swfox.net/speakers.aspx) and topics (http://swfox.net/sessionsswfox.aspx) on the conference website (http://swfox.net/default.aspx) Please beat the rush so we still have some fingernails left when July begins! No need to wait, we won't charge your card or cash your check until the middle of July! Rick White Light Computing, Inc. www.whitelightcomputing.com

2 1

[ADMIN ] Duplicate messages from Ken Dibble
by Paul Newton 29 Jun '18

29 Jun '18

Hi Ken Dibble and all I am getting duplicate messages on the list from Ken Dibble - one seems to be via ProFox and the duplicate via ProFoxTech. Is anybody else seeing this and can anything be done about it? Ken, are you sending your messages to both? Thanks Paul Newton

4 5

Re: [ADMIN ] Duplicate messages from Ken Dibble
by Ken Dibble 29 Jun '18

29 Jun '18

I'm only sending to ProFox. And I only get one copy of my own messages. Ken >Hi Ken Dibble and all > >I am getting duplicate messages on the list from Ken Dibble - one >seems to be via ProFox and the duplicate via ProFoxTech. Is anybody >else seeing this and can anything be done about it? Ken, are you >sending your messages to both? > >Thanks > >Paul Newton > [excessive quoting removed by server]

1 0

Re: [NF] "Modern Standby", Win 10, and Bitlocker with Azure
by Ken Dibble 28 Jun '18

28 Jun '18

Thank you. It's not my fear. We have taken on a subcontract to provide Help Desk support for another organization that is supplying these laptops. We were told the laptops would have "full disk encryption", so that's I what I expected to find when I received them. I did not find what I expected. When I think "full disk encryption", I think that means that when the user turns the machine on, s/he has to enter some credentials before s/he even sees the OS login screen. In other words, the entire disk outside of the master boot record must be manually unlocked before any use can be made of it, no matter where that disk is or who is trying to use it. Having successfully done that, I then expect the user to have to enter another set of credentials at the OS login screen before s/he can use the machine. (Two factor authentication would not work in legitimate situations where there is no internet or phone service, a very common situation in my rural part of the country.) That is what you get if you set up "full disk encryption" using VeraCrypt on a Windows 7 machine. We don't do this very often. I prefer simply to create a separate data partition and encrypt that so the user doesn't need two sets of credentials if s/he isn't going to do anything but, say, run a web browser to access encrypted websites. We don't use BitLocker for this because our laptops are Win7 Pro, not Ultimate. You have to have Ultimate to set up Bitlocker encryption in Win 7 (you only need Pro to read a Bitlocker-encrypted device, like a USB memory stick). So apparently there are two completely different definitions of "full disk encryption" out there in the wild. Both will protect you if somebody steals the device and pulls the HDD out of it. (However, I also thought that ordinary Windows encryption, present in XP and perhaps earlier, would do that.) One of them will protect you if somebody steals the device and one set of credentials; they other one won't. I will point out that I'm not the only person who saw it this way; both of my assistants, who are experienced computer guys and not relying on me, had the same definition of "full disk encryption" in their heads. Since the organization that is paying us has the responsibility for complying with federal NIST security standards, and not me, I will shrug this off even though I don't believe that what you have described--and what the organization has done--actually complies with the standard in question. Anyway, thanks for your help. Ken >BitLocker will only prompt for a recovery key if it detects the device that >the hard drive is in has changed. It's inconspicuous in day-to-day use (and >it has nothing to do with being connected to the Internet or in Modern >Standby mode). > >The purpose is to protect the data when the drive is removed and put into >another machine to be read. If someone steals your entire machine and knows >the local login credentials, well you're on your own. If that's your fear >maybe enable two-factor authentication (e.g. Windows Hello and a PIN). > >Eric > > >On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Ken Dibble <krdibble(a)stny.rr.com> wrote: > > > Perhaps someone here can answer this question. > > > > I have a Windows 10 Pro laptop. It is part of an Azure AD domain, in which > > InTune is being used for a variety of management functions. It is supposed > > to have Bitlocker full disk encryption enabled, and the Bitlocker key is > > stored in InTune. > > > > I do not connect any cables to this laptop. I simply turn it on. I do not > > manually connect it to any wireless internet source. The machine displays a > > standard Windows 10 login screen. Having local admin credentials, I log in > > and get full access to the machine. > > > > What is wrong with this picture? > > > > As I understand Win 10 Bitlocker disk encryption, I don't need to supply > > pre-boot credentials if the computer can see the internet, or if the > > machine has "Modern Standby" enabled. I understand the latter to mean that > > the laptop has never been fully turned off since somebody unlocked the > > encryption. > > > > If I am correct, since I did not connect the laptop to any internet > > source, yet I still am able to get into the machine using only the local > > admin credentials, if Bitlocker full-disk encryption is actually > > implemented, then the machine must be in "Modern Standby". > > > > I don't use Windows 10 but to me this situation is analogous to having set > > up full disk encryption on a Win 7 box, submitted a PIN to get to the login > > screen, and then closed the lid to force hibernation mode. If I open the > > lid I don't need to put in the pre-boot PIN again but I have to log into > > Windows. > > > > As I see it, if somebody steals this laptop as well as the local admin > > credentials, the alleged Bitlocker "full disk encryption" will do > > absolutely nothing to prevent the thief from gaining full control of the > > machine. > > > > Is this correct, or am I, as is often the case, missing some crucial piece > > of information. > > > > Thanks for any help. > > > > Ken Dibble > > www.stic-cil.org > > > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server]

1 0

Re: [NF] "Modern Standby", Win 10, and Bitlocker with Azure
by Eric Selje 28 Jun '18

28 Jun '18

BitLocker will only prompt for a recovery key if it detects the device that the hard drive is in has changed. It's inconspicuous in day-to-day use (and it has nothing to do with being connected to the Internet or in Modern Standby mode). The purpose is to protect the data when the drive is removed and put into another machine to be read. If someone steals your entire machine and knows the local login credentials, well you're on your own. If that's your fear maybe enable two-factor authentication (e.g. Windows Hello and a PIN). Eric On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Ken Dibble <krdibble(a)stny.rr.com> wrote: > Perhaps someone here can answer this question. > > I have a Windows 10 Pro laptop. It is part of an Azure AD domain, in which > InTune is being used for a variety of management functions. It is supposed > to have Bitlocker full disk encryption enabled, and the Bitlocker key is > stored in InTune. > > I do not connect any cables to this laptop. I simply turn it on. I do not > manually connect it to any wireless internet source. The machine displays a > standard Windows 10 login screen. Having local admin credentials, I log in > and get full access to the machine. > > What is wrong with this picture? > > As I understand Win 10 Bitlocker disk encryption, I don't need to supply > pre-boot credentials if the computer can see the internet, or if the > machine has "Modern Standby" enabled. I understand the latter to mean that > the laptop has never been fully turned off since somebody unlocked the > encryption. > > If I am correct, since I did not connect the laptop to any internet > source, yet I still am able to get into the machine using only the local > admin credentials, if Bitlocker full-disk encryption is actually > implemented, then the machine must be in "Modern Standby". > > I don't use Windows 10 but to me this situation is analogous to having set > up full disk encryption on a Win 7 box, submitted a PIN to get to the login > screen, and then closed the lid to force hibernation mode. If I open the > lid I don't need to put in the pre-boot PIN again but I have to log into > Windows. > > As I see it, if somebody steals this laptop as well as the local admin > credentials, the alleged Bitlocker "full disk encryption" will do > absolutely nothing to prevent the thief from gaining full control of the > machine. > > Is this correct, or am I, as is often the case, missing some crucial piece > of information. > > Thanks for any help. > > Ken Dibble > www.stic-cil.org > > > [excessive quoting removed by server]

1 0

VFP9 and Blat
by Desmond Lloyd 28 Jun '18

28 Jun '18

Good Morning all, Have been using Blat here at work for years. Essentially modifying the code as the need arose. now have a client that I would like to use it on, but for some reason it always returns a code 1 in the new environment but works fine here at work... Would someone please look at the sample below to see what I might be missing? LPARAMETERS lcsubject, lcbody, lcrecipient, lcfrom, lccopyto lcFrom = 'dlloyd(a)wow.com' *lcfrom = 'dlloyd(a)test.com' lcSubject = 'Email Test' set Safety off lcBody = 'This is a Test of an automated email system. Third Test. Would you Please reply if received'+ CHR(13) + CHR(10) + CHR(13) + CHR(10) lcRecipient = 'desmond.lloyd(a)gmail.com' STRTOFILE(lcbody, "Body.txt") lcstring = 'C:\Body.txt -s "' + lcsubject + '" -to ' + lcrecipient + ' -f ' + lcfrom + ' -u '+'dlloyd'+' -pw '+'password'+ ' -server '+'192.168.999..62' dll_name = "blat.dll" DECLARE INTEGER Send in &dll_name STRING blatstring lnresult = send(lcstring) IF lnresult > 0 wait window 'Result: '+alltrim(str(lnREsult)) ENDIF --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html ---

5 5

Re: [ADMIN] Filter Redux
by Ed Leafe 27 Jun '18

27 Jun '18

On Jun 27, 2018, at 2:05 PM, Ken Dibble <krdibble(a)stny.rr.com> wrote: > > Message sent 12:53 PM EDT. Not received by 3:04 PM EDT, and not in the archives. > > Ed? Please check the filter again. I don't know why it doesn't like your email, but it rated it as 90% spam and held it. If this happens again, no need to send to the list - just send an email directly to me: ed(a)leafe.com -- Ed Leafe --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/signed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/pgp-signature ---

1 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

ProFox June 2018