Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database

External Since: Jul 01, 2008 Posts: 57

Servers are _LESS_ complex than having 12 different tiers of Jet
databases.

User Level Security doesn't integrate with Windows Active Directory.
Thus, it is obsolete.
User Level Security doesn't integrate with Windows Active Directory.
Thus, it is obsolete.
User Level Security doesn't integrate with Windows Active Directory.
Thus, it is obsolete.

On Dec 24, 4:52 am, 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.
>
> --
> Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
> Email (as appropriate) to...
> RBrandt at Hunter dot com

External Since: Jul 01, 2008 Posts: 57

dude you can't run Access through a firewall.

that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of in my life.

Maybe if you knew something about firewalls, you would know how silly
that sounds, to even say something like that.

-Aaron

On Dec 24, 2:49 pm, "Chris O'C via AccessMonster.com"
wrote:
> 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 Smile

.
>
> >> 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
> >MPAPos...@FortuneJames.com
>
> --
> Message posted viahttp://www.accessmonster.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -