VoIP is a term that refers to Voice over Internet Protocol. It is a technology that allows phone calls to be made using high-speed Internet connections like cable, T1 or high-end DSL. Other common names for VoIP are IP, digital and Internet phones. The unique thing about digital phone technology is that it works with regular analog phones and this is important because since not everyone may have this technology in place, your calls will still be received whether the party you are calling has VoIP in place or not.

What is a hosted digital phone system and how does it benefit you?

Host digital phone simply means that all the equipment and service you need for the phone system is provided by a hosting company and you therefore do not need to have any equipment at your location. The only thing that is highly critical is that your business location needs a reliable high-speed Internet connection. The great thing is that your business location already have most of what is needed – computers, Internet connection, a computer network etc.

You can Cut Costs With Hosted Digital Phones and here are some of the advantages:

• There is no need to have a Private Branch eXchange (PBX), which is the very expensive box that major telephone service providers install on your premises. That drastically reduces the huge capital outlay required to install a PBX onsite because all that is required for a digital phone system is high-speed Internet connection and a router which is provided by the service provider. The flexibility of this system is truly great because most of the responsibility of handling calls rests on the service provider.
• Since digital phones use what is called a packet based technology, it is possible to make a lot of calls at the same time.
• You can select a fixed monthly fee that covers all the calls you make since your phones use Internet technology. In addition, it does not make any difference whether you have one or several locations. This is a great way to save on long distance charges.
• Digital phone systems allow you to receive faxes, emails and text messages as well as the ability to take your phone on the road if you are traveling.
• Support can be provided remotely and the result is instantaneous. This is useful for adding new users or extensions on configuring the phone without having to wait for a technician to drive to the office. It also makes it very easy to move phones from one location to another since they just need an IP address in order to work.
• The ability to have a toll-free number at a fixed cost.

For more information on how to cut costs and start saving with a hosted digital telephone system, visit our website.

I have always used Nokia phones and that manufacturer provided the option to sync the data on the device with a local computer – laptop, netbook etc. Recent trends with Android devices are becoming troubling.

The first thing that seems odd when you buy a new Android device is that users have to sign into a Google account before they can even access the device the first time. I noticed that trend with recent devices we tested – the Nook tablet, Asus Transformer, MyTouch G, Samsung Galaxy S2 etc. The only way to avoid this is to provide the wrong login information and restart the device after which you are offered the option to “Skip” signing in. This is wrong at so many levels. Not everyone has a Google account and just because you provided the Operating System that runs the device does not mean you have to force users to use your service.

And it all seems to be OK. What would the reactions of users or the industry be if Microsoft or Nokia or Apple “forced” users to create an account before they could use their devices or Windows computers? I’m sure there would be cries of “Monopoly”, “Heavy-handed”, “Violation of the right to choose” etc. Why does this seem to be OK with Google?

Now comes the most annoying part of this Google Android thing: the carriers are removing (or appear to be removing) the option to sync with a local computer by not providing a native tool to do so. Pick up any new android device today and see if there is a tool that will allow you to sync your data with your laptop or desktop computer. My bet is, you won’t find many. There was a time when your new device came with a CD that had tools you could use with. That practice has been conveniently dropped by most manufacturers. Samsung has the Kies tool which you can download from their site and HTC has the HTC Sync tool that users can download although some carriers like T-Mobile apparently disabled this tool on their HTC devices. And when you ask about how to sync your device, the answer is always “Use Google”. As if we are all totally willing to give Google our information so they can blast us with more “targeted” ads.

Now contrast that with, for example, Nokia’s OVI Suite which allows you to sync your contacts, calendar, notes and messages as well as music, pictures and Video if you so choose. The tool even allows you to send messages from your computer when the device is connected. The key word here is choice. Why are Android users not being given this choice?

There are not many sync applications in the Android market, for those who will be quick to scream that. There are a couple of Third-party tools like like CompanionLink (paid) or MyPhoneExplorer (free), but that is just adding another overhead to an already tricky situation, what with constant reports of malware infestation in the Android market. I would rather that the device manufacturer added a native tool that can be trusted to a reasonable degree.

Beyond that, not all of us are Google fans. We just want a phone because there are not a lot of options out there. Agreed that the current craze is “the cloud”, but should that be rammed down our throats? Many people have data they do not necessarily want to put in “the cloud”, especially if Google is going to read that information and use it to serve advertisements. So the question is, are the carriers being forced by Google to remove sync options?

According to the post:

The service performs a set of analyses on new applications, applications already in Android Market, and developer accounts. Here’s how it works: once an application is uploaded, the service immediately starts analyzing it for known malware, spyware and trojans. It also looks for behaviors that indicate an application might be misbehaving, and compares it against previously analyzed apps to detect possible red flags. We actually run every application on Google’s cloud infrastructure and simulate how it will run on an Android device to look for hidden, malicious behavior. We also analyze new developer accounts to help prevent malicious and repeat-offending developers from coming back.

While the malware bouncer system may be a step in the right direction, there is a more dangerous aspect of apps in the Android market that needs to be fixed and that is the permissions that applications demand before they can be installed. A quick look at the permissions required by some applications on the market immediately shows that security in the Android space will continue to be an issue.

For example, why would a text editor require access to phone records and GPS location information? One can understand needing network (Internet) access to push some ads, but access to phone records and logs? The same goes for any category from  games to business use applications.

It is this permission free-for-all that got Symantec into some controversy recently when the company announced the discovery of apps in the Android Market that it deemed malicious. The apps, according to Symantec, were able to change the default home page in the web browsers of the “infected” devices, add bookmarks, and place shortcuts – actions one could easily associate with browser hijackers, and it is doubtful that users who installed these apps were expecting the applications to perform those actions without “explicit” consent.

And there lies the problem because technically, the user may have “explicitly” given permission when he or she clicked on “OK” or “Install. This issue arises because as in anything that requires clicking through, most users blindly click through messages boxes  without bothering to read through what they are consenting to. A quick browse of apps on the the android market will show several applications that request unnecessary permissions before they are installed.

For example, here is the permission requirement of an app called password notes, which is supposedly meant to “protect your notes with password”:

Permissions
This application has access to the following:

Your location
coarse (network-based) location
Access coarse location sources such as the cellular network database to determine an approximate device location, where available. Malicious applications can use this to determine approximately where you are.
fine (GPS) location
Access fine location sources such as the Global Positioning System on the device, where available. Malicious applications can use this to determine where you are, and may consume additional battery power.
Network communication
full Internet access
Allows an application to create network sockets.
Phone calls
read phone state and identity
Allows the application to access the phone features of the device. An application with this permission can determine the phone number and serial number of this phone, whether a call is active, the number that call is connected to and the like.

Really? Access to GPS and phone records etc. for a note app?

Granted, Google does give this warning about permissions:

Permissions: Android provides a permission system to help you understand the capabilities of the apps you install, and manage your own preferences. That way, if you see a game unnecessarily requests permission to send SMS, for example, you don’t need to install it.

But the company needs to remove the onus from users and demand to know from the developers why “a game unnecessarily requests permission to send SMS”. After all, it is the Android name and the integrity of Google that is at stake here.

Apparently, that was then. Fyodor, the creator of nmap recently wrote a scathing article about how CNET has now become the very essence of a drive-by download – where you get a little more than you bargained for when you download software from a website. CNET has taken the concept to another level by actually reverse-engineering submitted software and injecting malicious content before presenting them to trusting users.

The article is a serious indictment on CNET for abusing the trust placed on them by millions of users and the software developers who are kind enough to create a program and give it to users for free. By monetizing the hard work of these developers without their knowledge (unless they are willing to pay a “premium fee), it is not far-fetched to accuse CNET of “stealing”. It is just now, after they were outed that there is talk of ” giving the developers a cut” of the money they’ve been raking in from dropping trojans and adware on the computers of millions of unsuspecting users, including kids, for crying out loud.

Why is this a problem? We know that most users click through installation prompts without bothering to read, and this is exactly what CNET was taking advantage of, until they messed with Wireshark and NMap.

The unethical nature of it is that while CNET was raking in millions of dollars, the creators of the software they were reverse-engineering were catching grief for infecting users’ computers with bogus web browser toolbars, home pages and adware that could very well have leaked private information.

As Alan Shimel of networkworld explains it, here’s how these “wrappers” work:
“[W]hen you click to download software from their site (which is software developed by others), they are “wrapping” it in their own installers.  This C/Net installer will either ask you (if they are polite) or in some cases not so obviously install other 3rd party software on your computer.  Things like web toolbars, alternate search engines and other programs that usually pay money for every copy that gets installed.”

Is this practice limited to just CNET? Not by a long shot, but most do it on the website – like when you are presented with the download button for something different than what you originally wanted to download. The argument is always that ” this is to help us pay the bills”. No one is arguing with the need to generate revenue. It is the deceptive way in which that goal is being achieved that is drawing some angst. There is a difference between giving the user an option to install a toolbar and respecting the choice when the user selects “No”, and installing a toolbar, changing the home page and dropping adware on a user’s computer through a deceptive “accept” button.

Then there is the other part of the equation – the enablers of CNET’s unethical behavior. The parties who were encouraging CNET to bundle toolbars, browsers, search engines etc. in the software they were hosting should also be ashamed of their dirty tricks.

It is important to remind users to take the time to read the dialog boxes that pop up when trying to install an application:

• If available, always choose the “Custom” option so you can at least see what other crap is going to be dumped on your computer by the installer. In most cases, you can decline or uncheck the box for items you do not want.
• After the installation, go through the “add/remove” (Windows XP) or “program features” (Windows Vista/7) section in control panel to see if some strange software was installed without your knowledge and promptly remove them.
• Run “msconfig” and look through the “startup” tab to see if some strange application has inserted itself to automatically start with Windows and disable them.

It is only going to get worse, unfortunately.

The symptoms are usually that you are unable to open your company file in Quick Books and resolution attempts like repairing the installation fail, and you get prompts for a mysterious html file.

From most indications, this usually happens if you do a system restore, or move your operating system files to a new hard drive or new computer. It leads one to believe that there is some kind of hash or signature on the specific file causing the frustration and that file is the aptly named “Entitlement” file which manages the phone-home registration process of Quick Books. The file in question is the “Entitlement DataStore.ecml” file.

To fix error 3371, rename the offending file and you should be able to start living again. Obviously, you will have to re-register with Intuit.

If you are still using Windows XP, you need to do this:

For those who like to type:

• Click Start and choose Run.
• Type the following command into the Open field:
  C:Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Intuit\Entitlement Client\v2 (Note: you may have multiple “v” folders, so look for the current or latest one)
• Click OK
• Delete (or preferably, rename) the “Entitlement DataStore.ecml” file.

For the clickers, you can just “Explore” your way to the “C:Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Intuit\Entitlement Client\ v*” folder and rename or delete the stupid file.

For the Windows 7 users, go here: C:\ProgramData\Intuit\Entitlement Client\v* (where ‘*’ is a number). Rename the errant file. Quick Books will create a new one when you start the application.

[Note that the "ProgramData" folder may be hidden in which case you can unhide it like this:

• Open "Computer", Click on "Organize | Folder and search options | View,  and select "Show hidden files, folders..."]

Start Quick Books and you should be good to go. Remember, you most likely, will get a reminder to register Quick Books within 30 days.

Disclaimer: Backup your stuff before you start messing with files. If you hose your application, do not come crying to me. If you are not sure, consult a professional. ‘Nuff said.