Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database

wow, it sounds to me like Jet Compact and Repair is too complex for
you.

If I were you, I would upsize to SQL Server and Access Data Projects





On Dec 22, 5:38 am, Sandro wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Is there any way for us to avoid the creation of a Blank Database in Access
> 97? We need to do that to complete a set of security measures to avoid the
> import/export and linking to our main Database Application.
>
> Thanks in Advance.
>
> --
> Sandro
 >> Stay informed about: Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database 

Thank you for all the Answers!


--
Sandro


"Sandro" wrote:

> Hello!
>
>
> Is there any way for us to avoid the creation of a Blank Database in Access
> 97? We need to do that to complete a set of security measures to avoid the
> import/export and linking to our main Database Application.
>
>
>
> Thanks in Advance.
>
>
>
> --
> Sandro
 >> Stay informed about: Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database 

GenlAccess wrote:

>You say MVP, BUT even with the MS online interface, no little logo, sweetie.

I'm satisfied that he's an MVP from his postings in the online forums
in the past. And he has quite good reasons for not identifying
himself fully or having a profile on the MS website.

>You been dippin too much eggnog to celebrate or just dense as ol' aaron,
>Chrissie?

Please refrain from derogatory or condescending postings.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
 >> Stay informed about: Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database 

"Tony Toews [MVP]" wrote

>> You been dippin too much eggnog to celebrate
>> or just dense as ol' aaron, Chrissie?
>
> Please refrain from derogatory or condescending postings.

He may have been condescending, but Gen Access was right about Access'
security. I, too, am surprised that Chris O'C would recommend it. It can be
useful for keeping honest people from tripping over their own feet by
stumbling into the wrong form, but certainly not useful for protecting data
nor the application itself.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Office Access MVP
 >> Stay informed about: Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database 

Larry, your blue MVP icon doesn't show in the MS online interface unless the
message was posted with that interface, but we still know you're an MVP, like
here:

http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/default.mspx?&lang=en&...US&guid


http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/default.mspx?&lang=en&...US&guid


My family has a long history with the KKK. I've learned it's not hard to see
who's hiding under white sheets, trying to insult and intimidate anonymously.

Chris


GenlAccess wrote:
>You say MVP, BUT even with the MS online interface, no little logo, sweetie.
>
>All Access users but raw newbies know Access' security is not worth using.
>Much less worth recommending by someone claiming to be an MVP. Go to
>http://accesstools.narod.ru/ and get a freebie -- break Access' lame security
>like snappin your fingers.
>
>You been dippin too much eggnog to celebrate or just dense as ol' aaron,
>Chrissie?
>
> Genl Access
>
>> Anybody who has retail Access 97 through 2007 can create a blank 97 db. If
>> anybody is able to import, export or link to the tables in a secure Access 97
>[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>> >97? We need to do that to complete a set of security measures to avoid the
>> >import/export and linking to our main Database Application.

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com
 >> Stay informed about: Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database 

Chris O'C via AccessMonster.com wrote:

>
> My family has a long history with the KKK. I've learned it's not hard to see
> who's hiding under white sheets, trying to insult and intimidate anonymously.
>
> Chris

There's no reason to hide. The KKK doesn't shoot trolls .

James A. Fortune
MPAPoster.DeleteThis@FortuneJames.com
 >> Stay informed about: Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database 

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:54:20 -0600, Larry Linson wrote:
> He may have been condescending, but Gen Access was right about Access'
> security. I, too, am surprised that Chris O'C would recommend it. It
> can be useful for keeping honest people from tripping over their own
> feet by stumbling into the wrong form, but certainly not useful for
> protecting data nor the application itself.

I never use it anymore, and I hesitate to recommend it to anyone that is
not already familiar with it simply because it is so difficult to "get".
However if there is only one redeeming aspect of ULS it is this...

With just about any other home-grown security-by-obscurity system, a user
could circumvent it and yet claim that they were not being intentionally
snoopy or devious. "I turned on view hidden objects and there were some
new tables. I was just curious". "I was playing around in another file
and on a lark ended up importing the tables from this file. Since I was
allowed to do it I saw no harm". "I read something on-line about this
shift-key thing and was just experimenting".

While obtaining tools to break ULS might be fairly easy to do, a person
that actually does it forfeits any claim to innocence. You can't
inadvertently break (properly implemented) ULS. You can't claim that you
weren't aware that what you did was inappropriate. It is crossing a
different line in the sand and some might find value in having that
line. It doesn't meet the bar for *actual* data security, but an
argument can be made that it is still the best you can do without going
to a server or some complex encryption scheme.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
 >> Stay informed about: Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database 

"James A. Fortune" wrote in
news:eoW#SxXZJHA.3844@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

> advertising obsolete features could be construed by some as an
> argument in "favor" of his being an MVP

User-level security is not an "obsolete feature." Jet 4 is a native
file format for the current version of Access and ULS is fully
supported in A2K7 with that format (i.e., MDB).

The fact that the newly introduced file format doesn't support it
doesn't make it obsolete.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
 >> Stay informed about: Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database 

Larry,

I think you may have misunderstood me as if I'd made a recommendation when I
was trying to point out how to tell when the db isn't properly secured. I
wrote:

"If anybody is able to import, export or link to the tables in a secure
Access 97 db, you haven't secured it properly."

Securing an Access db properly means taking *all* the steps necessary to
secure it, not just some. A properly secured Access db is split, the data is
on a secure db server, and the front end incapable of connecting to the back
end tables until the user provides the correct user name and password,
because these should never be stored in an Access db. If you stop after user
level security, you haven't taken all the steps to properly secure the db.

If I gave you a properly secured Access db file, you wouldn't be able to
import, export or link to the data because you wouldn't know the user name,
password and connect info to get past the firewall where the data is stored.

I didn't say user level security would protect the app. I'll say you'd have
difficulty altering a properly secured Access db's forms, reports and modules
without hiring a service to do it (or buying a tool from one of them). Those
services won't do it without proof you own the db. Again, properly secured
means taking all the steps to secure the db. For a front end that includes
making it an mde and disabling the shift key bypass.

Chris
Microsoft MVP


Larry Linson wrote:

>I, too, am surprised that Chris O'C would recommend it. It can be
>useful for keeping honest people from tripping over their own feet by
>stumbling into the wrong form, but certainly not useful for protecting data
>nor the application itself.
>
> Larry Linson
> Microsoft Office Access MVP

--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/access/200812/1
 >> Stay informed about: Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database 

My claim to be an MVP *is* substantiated. Search for blue mvp icon and my
name and you'll find several discussions and links to the proof. The blue
MVP icon shows up next to my name whenever I post using the MS online
community website.

Don't be so quick to judge without walking a mile in my moccasins. My
reticence is due to my boss hating MVPs. If he found out I was one, I'd be
fired. I don't know if you've checked the economy lately, but people are
walking on eggshells trying not to do anything that will land them in the
unemployment line.

I think you may have misunderstood me as if I'd made a recommendation for
user level security when I was trying to point out how to tell when the db
isn't properly secured. I wrote:

"If anybody is able to import, export or link to the tables in a secure
Access 97 db, you haven't secured it properly."

Securing an Access db properly means taking *all* the steps necessary to
secure it, not just some. A properly secured Access db is split, the data is
on a secure db server, and the front end incapable of connecting to the back
end tables until the user provides the correct user name and password,
because these should never be stored in an Access db. If you stop after user
level security, you haven't taken all the steps to properly secure the db.

If I gave you a properly secured Access db file, you wouldn't be able to
import, export or link to the data because you wouldn't know the user name,
password and connect info to get past the firewall where the data is stored.

Chris
Microsoft MVP


James A. Fortune wrote:

>There
>really aren't too many possibilities for his reticence, and precious few
>of those are any good. Therefore, I'm impressed by his unsubstantiated
>MVP claim in some anonymous area -- negatively.
>
>> All Access users but raw newbies know Access' security is not worth using.
>> Much less worth recommending by someone claiming to be an MVP.
>
>Actually, advertising obsolete features could be construed by some as an
>argument in "favor" of his being an MVP .
>
>> You been dippin too much eggnog to celebrate or just dense as ol' aaron,
>> Chrissie?
>
>Even so, I can't fault your logic. Anyone who reads posts in, say,
>AccessMonster.com, even casually, should have known that Access'
>built-in security is easily broken.
>
>> Genl Access
>>
>[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>>>97? We need to do that to complete a set of security measures to avoid the
>>>>import/export and linking to our main Database Application.
>
>James A. Fortune
>MPAPoster@FortuneJames.com

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com
 >> Stay informed about: Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database 

Before the contempt gets any heavier, it might be a good idea to revisit
recent history so we don't follow the same path.

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.access/msg/650f0af3de0...6f?hl=e


Chris


James A. Fortune wrote:
>Maybe Microsoft awarded him an MVP for Trolling. You really can't
>advertise that, but it might get you into some MVP areas . There
>really aren't too many possibilities for his reticence, and precious few
>of those are any good. Therefore, I'm impressed by his unsubstantiated
>MVP claim in some anonymous area -- negatively.
>
>> All Access users but raw newbies know Access' security is not worth using.
>> Much less worth recommending by someone claiming to be an MVP.
>
>Actually, advertising obsolete features could be construed by some as an
>argument in "favor" of his being an MVP .
>
>> You been dippin too much eggnog to celebrate or just dense as ol' aaron,
>> Chrissie?
>
>Even so, I can't fault your logic. Anyone who reads posts in, say,
>AccessMonster.com, even casually, should have known that Access'
>built-in security is easily broken.
>
>> Genl Access

>James A. Fortune
>MPAPoster@FortuneJames.com

--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/access/200812/1
 >> Stay informed about: Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database 

Rick Brandt wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:54:20 -0600, Larry Linson wrote:
>
>>He may have been condescending, but Gen Access was right about Access'
>>security. I, too, am surprised that Chris O'C would recommend it. It
>>can be useful for keeping honest people from tripping over their own
>>feet by stumbling into the wrong form, but certainly not useful for
>>protecting data nor the application itself.
>
>
> I never use it anymore, and I hesitate to recommend it to anyone that is
> not already familiar with it simply because it is so difficult to "get".
> However if there is only one redeeming aspect of ULS it is this...
>
> With just about any other home-grown security-by-obscurity system, a user
> could circumvent it and yet claim that they were not being intentionally
> snoopy or devious. "I turned on view hidden objects and there were some
> new tables. I was just curious". "I was playing around in another file
> and on a lark ended up importing the tables from this file. Since I was
> allowed to do it I saw no harm". "I read something on-line about this
> shift-key thing and was just experimenting".
>
> While obtaining tools to break ULS might be fairly easy to do, a person
> that actually does it forfeits any claim to innocence. You can't
> inadvertently break (properly implemented) ULS. You can't claim that you
> weren't aware that what you did was inappropriate. It is crossing a
> different line in the sand and some might find value in having that
> line. It doesn't meet the bar for *actual* data security, but an
> argument can be made that it is still the best you can do without going
> to a server or some complex encryption scheme.
>

That's a great point. So ULS is a catalyst. It's presence is more
important than what it does. Very Zen.

James A. Fortune
MPAPoster.RemoveThis@FortuneJames.com

Knowing when to use which side of the brain is a mark of a very wise person.
 >> Stay informed about: Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database 

User Level Security is _NOT_ available in Access 2007 (format).

Jet is obsolete, and it always has been .
That is why they've introduced a new format.

Also-- Jet became 100% obsolete back in the year 1999 when Access Data
Projects were introduced with the release of Office 2000.

Ever since then -- you've been insisting that it hasn't been
obsoleted.

But it's obvious to everyone now-- and it has been for a decade-- that
Jet is dead.

-Aaron







On Dec 24, 2:02 pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
> "James A. Fortune" wrote innews:eoW#SxXZJHA.3844@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
> > advertising obsolete features could be construed by some as an
> > argument in "favor" of his being an MVP
>
> User-level security is not an "obsolete feature." Jet 4 is a native
> file format for the current version of Access and ULS is fully
> supported in A2K7 with that format (i.e., MDB).
>
> The fact that the newly introduced file format doesn't support it
> doesn't make it obsolete.
>
> --
> David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/
> usenet at dfenton dot com    http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
 >> Stay informed about: Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database