Monday, March 26, 2018

My Typical Password: Is a 25 character minimum passphrase policy possible?

My blog has moved!  Please visit the new blog at:

I will no longer be posting to Dynamics GP Land, and all new posts will be at


By Steve Endow

If you haven't read my prior post about passwords, perhaps read that first:

My "Passphrase Generator" has been working great since then. It isn't perfect, but has been working well enough for me.

I thought I was doing all the "right" things by using my passphrase generator and using a password manager religiously.

Using words with a max length of 7 characters, 2 numbers, and 1 symbol, I have been generating passphrases like:

Briony%4Cobwebs4    (16 chars)
Hyped/5Umber1    (13 chars)
Reecho%6Touzled8    (16 chars)
Tisanes#4Tangles6    (17 chars)

I considered these pretty safe passwords.

But I recently started listening to Kevin Mitnick's book, The Art of Invisibility, on Audible. In that book, Mitnick recommends that people now use passphrases of at least 25 characters.

25 characters?!?!?  (interrobang)

That's crazy!

But is it?

Those of us who work with Dynamics GP regularly bemoan the 15 character limit for passwords, as many of our customers have encountered issues with this limit. The customer's IT security policy requires a minimum of 15 characters, and they eventually figure out that their 16+ character passwords don't work in Dynamics GP.

So obviously that rules out using 25+ character passwords for Dynamics GP.

But I'm pretty sure I've run into web sites that would not allow me to have anywhere near 25 characters.

There's only one way to find out.  I just reset my password on these web sites.  These weren't the limits of the site, just the length of the long passwords that I randomly generated for each and successfully saved.

Twitter:  35 characters
Stack Overflow:  35 characters  38 characters
Atlassian/Bitbucket:  36 characters

Wow, moving right along!  It looks like a 25 character minimum password might be possible!

(play record scratch here)

Then I login to my online banking web site.  Major bank.  Big bank.  Huge bank.  Not a relatively tiny web site like GPUG.

And what do I see?

20 character max!  What??

Strike one!

Hmmm, let's check another bank web site.  I log in to a smaller bank that I use, but when I try to change the password...and... doesn't allow me to paste in the password from my Passphrase Generator!

That is garbage!

Troy Hunt lays out this entire stupid fake "security" policy of not allowing password pasting in his excellent blog post here.

And I see that he shows examples of GE Capital and PayPal and others.

So that pretty much kills the idea of consistently using 25+ character passwords.

Could I use really long passwords on sites that allow them, and that allow pasting?  Sure.  And I may start doing that.

But clearly there are many sites, particularly the large ones, that have indefensible password length limitations and block the paste function.  So for those, you're limited to their arbitrarily short password lengths.

So I guess that answers my question.

With that said, will I use 30+ character passwords?  Not sure.

Occasionally I have to manually enter the password on a mobile device, and it is a nightmare to try and type that many characters in a password field.  I can barely compose a simple text message on my phone without making a typo, so my password typing success rate is not stellar.

But I may give it a try.  As I reset my passwords going forward, I'll try and use a 25+ character passphrase and see how it goes.

Hopefully some day my bank will allow more than 20 characters.

You can also find him on Twitter, YouTube, and Google+

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Beware of MIN, MAX, and TOP in Dynamics GP SQL queries!

By Steve Endow

A few weeks ago I started some research to compare the performance of MAX vs. TOP(1) in SQL Server queries.

After finding some unexpected results, I created a second video showing some odd behavior of MAX and TOP on one particular Dynamics GP table.  At that time, I couldn't figure out what was causing the performance issue with the MAX function.

Well, thanks to some very generous help and amazing insight from Kendra Little, I finally have a definitive explanation for the performance issue.

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

SQL MAX vs TOP 1: Part 2! The Revenge of IV30500!

By Steve Endow

I just can't let it go.  I need to know.  I need answers.  I need to solve the mystery.  The riddle.  The enigma.

Why does the MAX function sometimes perform very poorly compared to TOP 1?

I really thought that "MAX vs TOP 1" was a simple question. An easy question.  A spend 10 seconds on Stack Overflow and get the answer type of question.

But I just couldn't leave it alone and had to go and test it for myself.  And open a veritable Pandora's Box of SQL riddles.

In Part 1 of this series, I delved into how MAX and TOP 1 behave in several random queries, and I ended on a query that showed MAX performing quite poorly compared to TOP 1.

After that video, I stumbled across an even simpler query that produced an even more dramatic performance difference, where MAX performed miserably.  But I couldn't figure out why.

In this video, I discuss what I learned about the query and the specific Index Scan that is causing the MAX query to performing so poorly. 

Here's the recap:

When querying some fields, such as the IV30500 POSTEDDT, with no WHERE clause, both MAX and TOP 1 perform virtually the same, with both using a very efficient Index Scan.  50% vs 50% relative costs.

But when I query the TRXSOURCE field, with no WHERE clause, MAX shows 100% relative cost, whereas TOP 1 shows 0% relative cost.


The POSTEDDT query uses an Index Scan.  The TRXSOURCE query uses an Index Scan.  But for some reason with the TRXSOURCE query, MAX is much more costly.

I stared at this result for a few hours trying to figure out why.  I eventually found this tiny little detail.

Notice that the Actual Number of Rows for the MAX Index Scan is 147,316.  That's every row in the table.

By contrast, the TOP 1 Index Scan has Actual Number of Rows = 1.

What is going on?

For some reason, the MAX is having to scan the ENTIRE AK1IV30500 index.  It isn't getting much benefit from the index.

But why?

Unfortunately, I don't yet know.

"Maybe SQL is caching the query execution plan?"

Apparently not.  I tried DBCC FREEPROCCACHE, and saw no change.

"Maybe your statistics are stale and need to be updated?"


"C'mon Steve, clearly you need to re-index!"

Did that.  I tried DBREINDEX on the specific AK1IV30500 index, as well as the entire IV30500 table.  No change in the execution plan.

I didn't find any standard maintenance task that changed the behavior of the MAX Index Scan.

As a last resort, I used the Import/Export wizard to export all of the data from the IV30500 table into a new table that I called IV30500REBUILD.  I then ran scripts to create all of the same indexes on the REBUILD table, making it identical to the original IV30500 table.

I then ran the MAX and TOP 1 queries on the new REBUILD table.

And like magic, the MAX Index Scan returned just one row.

Same table structure.

Same data.

Same indexes.

But the Index Scan on the new REBUILD table behaves properly.

So there is apparently something about my IV30500 that is causing this problem, and rebuilding the entire table resolves it.  But rebuilding a table isn't exactly a typical SQL maintenance task, so it's not really a solution.

But this is way past my SQL skill level, so I don't yet know what conventional maintenance task might be able to achieve the same results.

I've asked for help from a true SQL expert, so I'm hoping that she will assist and help me figure out this mystery.

You can also find him on Twitter, YouTube, and Google+

Saturday, March 3, 2018

"Can you add just one more little feature?": A Story About Software and Home Improvement

By Steve Endow

Wife: "Steve, can you install an exhaust fan in the small bathroom?"
Steve:  "Sure, hunny, no problem. I just ordered the fan and I'll call Sam to install it."

Customer:  "Can you add this simple little feature to our application?"
Developer:  "Sure, no problem.  I'll get right on that."

No big deal.

Sam: "Steve, I cut a hole in the bathroom ceiling for the fan, but something is strange. There's an extra layer of drywall on the ceiling, and it's not attached properly and it's sagging."
Steve: "Hmmm, that doesn't look right. Let's remove the extra drywall and see what the prior homeowner was covering up."

Customer: "So how's that new simple little feature coming along?"
Developer: "Well, I looked through the code, and the original developers didn't design the software to handle this feature, so it's going to require some redesign of the customization."

I think the project scope just changed.

Friday, March 2, 2018

Sample Dynamics GP eConnect XML for RM Apply (RMApplyType / taRMApply)

My blog has moved!  Please visit the new blog at:

I will no longer be posting to Dynamics GP Land, and all new posts will be at


By Steve Endow

A customer asked for sample XML for the RMApplyType / taRMApply eConnect transaction type.  I couldn't find one handy during a search, so I had to cobble together some .NET code and generate the XML.

I'm wondering if there is an easier way to generate the sample eConnect XML.  In theory, eConnect Requester with the eConnect Outgoing Service can send certain XML documents to MSMQ, but that is a hassle to setup properly, and I don't know that all transaction types are supported by eConnect Requester--such RMApplyType.

So, here is a sample Dynamics GP eConnect XML document for RM Apply (RMApplyType / taRMApply)

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<eConnect xmlns:xsi="" xmlns:xsd="">
                        <eConnectProcessInfo xsi:nil="true" />
                        <taRequesterTrxDisabler_Items xsi:nil="true" />
                        <taAnalyticsDistribution_Items xsi:nil="true" />

Discount Taken, Apply Date, and GL Post Date are optional, and do not have to be assigned or included in the XML if they are not needed.

Here is the eConnect documentation on taRMApply.