DATASOUCE problem with SQL CLIENT from POCKET PC

I've been struggling to put together an install setup for an app on a pocket
pc. This app accesses a network SQL 2005 server.
I finally got things working - found some .CAB's that needed to be installed
on the PPC for SQL CE and SQL CLIENT.
But now I'm getting an odd error. In my SQL connection string I'm
specifying DATASOURCE=SPSERVER (which is the network server for SQL 2005 on
our domain). But instead it's connecting to a laptop SQL 2000 instance -
laptop name is FPS-LAP-SZ. I've googled for a bug like this and found no
info.
How do I guarantee the latest .CAB's for SQL CE and SQL CLIENT for my PPC
install?Hello Steve!
Correction: It's "Data Source=" or "Server=" not "DATASOURCE="
You may find the latest version of SQL Server CE from the following link:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=85e0c3ce-3fa1-453a-8ce9-af6ca20946c3
Ekrem Ã?nsoy
"Steve Z" <SteveZ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7508FAC3-F20E-4AB9-85AF-8E02782751D2@.microsoft.com...
> I've been struggling to put together an install setup for an app on a
> pocket
> pc. This app accesses a network SQL 2005 server.
> I finally got things working - found some .CAB's that needed to be
> installed
> on the PPC for SQL CE and SQL CLIENT.
> But now I'm getting an odd error. In my SQL connection string I'm
> specifying DATASOURCE=SPSERVER (which is the network server for SQL 2005
> on
> our domain). But instead it's connecting to a laptop SQL 2000 instance -
> laptop name is FPS-LAP-SZ. I've googled for a bug like this and found no
> info.
> How do I guarantee the latest .CAB's for SQL CE and SQL CLIENT for my PPC
> install?|||I have "DATA SOURCE=SPSERVER" - I typed it wrong in my post.
How about the latest download for SQL CLIENT for PPC?
"Ekrem Ã?nsoy" wrote:
> Hello Steve!
>
> Correction: It's "Data Source=" or "Server=" not "DATASOURCE="
> You may find the latest version of SQL Server CE from the following link:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=85e0c3ce-3fa1-453a-8ce9-af6ca20946c3
>
> --
> Ekrem Ã?nsoy
>
> "Steve Z" <SteveZ@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7508FAC3-F20E-4AB9-85AF-8E02782751D2@.microsoft.com...
> > I've been struggling to put together an install setup for an app on a
> > pocket
> > pc. This app accesses a network SQL 2005 server.
> >
> > I finally got things working - found some .CAB's that needed to be
> > installed
> > on the PPC for SQL CE and SQL CLIENT.
> >
> > But now I'm getting an odd error. In my SQL connection string I'm
> > specifying DATASOURCE=SPSERVER (which is the network server for SQL 2005
> > on
> > our domain). But instead it's connecting to a laptop SQL 2000 instance -
> > laptop name is FPS-LAP-SZ. I've googled for a bug like this and found no
> > info.
> >
> > How do I guarantee the latest .CAB's for SQL CE and SQL CLIENT for my PPC
> > install?
>

Datamining Viewer Client Problem

Hello!

I am running a SQL Server 2005. I created the mining models from the tutorials. I can connect with the DataminingViewerClient directly on the SQL Server(i.e. to localhost), but when i try to connect to the Server from my other computer it is not working i always get connection faild and i should check that the server is running. I can connect to the Server with other programms but the viewer is not working. Any ideas what that could be?

Can you connect to other servers from the machine where the DataminingViewerClient application works? If so, it may be that there are additional client components that need to be installed. Let us know and we can continue to diagnose.

Thanks

-Jamie

|||Ok i now tried to connect from Server A to Server B, not working either. It works on both when i run the viewer directly on the server and connect to localhost but not from Server A to B or vice versa or from any other computer. Could it be that some permissions are missing, because in the dataminingviewer client i dont have to specify a user/password for the server where the analysis-service runs. I dont think that components are missing because i can compile the source code without errors, but i'll be happy about any hint that might help.

Another thing i tried: When i create a datasource on Server A to connect to Server B(or from any other computer) it only works when I use the sa user(Windows Authentication doesnt work), otherwise i cant browse/select the databases.|||In general AS only uses Windows Authentication, unless you connect over http (requires configuration - see books online). Connecting over http allows you to specify a username and password. For the DM Viewer Client, you cna modify the code to use a http connection, or prompt for username and password. The source code is provided.|||

Hello again!

I found the error...the server was not in the domain, after we added it it worked.

Databases not showing up in EM on sql 2000, but do in 2005.

We have a SQL 2000 server that started showing 'no items' in enterprise
manager. However, when you connect with SQL2005 client tools they show up.
Any ideas?Eric
Have you "Refresh" on database folder?
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0AE0271E-33B9-4225-B007-A8D023103627@.microsoft.com...
> We have a SQL 2000 server that started showing 'no items' in enterprise
> manager. However, when you connect with SQL2005 client tools they show up.
> Any ideas?

Databases not showing up in EM on sql 2000, but do in 2005.

We have a SQL 2000 server that started showing 'no items' in enterprise
manager. However, when you connect with SQL2005 client tools they show up.
Any ideas?
Eric
Have you "Refresh" on database folder?
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0AE0271E-33B9-4225-B007-A8D023103627@.microsoft.com...
> We have a SQL 2000 server that started showing 'no items' in enterprise
> manager. However, when you connect with SQL2005 client tools they show up.
> Any ideas?

Databases not showing up in EM on sql 2000, but do in 2005.

We have a SQL 2000 server that started showing 'no items' in enterprise
manager. However, when you connect with SQL2005 client tools they show up.
Any ideas?Eric
Have you "Refresh" on database folder?
"Eric" <Eric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0AE0271E-33B9-4225-B007-A8D023103627@.microsoft.com...
> We have a SQL 2000 server that started showing 'no items' in enterprise
> manager. However, when you connect with SQL2005 client tools they show up.
> Any ideas?

Databases Not appearing in EM

SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 4
Client is using XP Service Pack 1
When the user opens the database folder in EM no databases appear. However,
I have XP Service Pack 1 and I can see all the databases. The difference is
I am a SysAdmin.
Has anyone seen this before. I had the client install SQL sp 4 on his
workstation.System or user-defined databases? System databases can be hidden in the
registration properties. Does the user have permissions to the user-defined
databases (i.e., a database user account)?
HTH
Jerry
"T Man" <TMan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BF678997-E93D-4FC4-8AE2-1451136068AA@.microsoft.com...
> SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 4
> Client is using XP Service Pack 1
> When the user opens the database folder in EM no databases appear.
> However,
> I have XP Service Pack 1 and I can see all the databases. The difference
> is
> I am a SysAdmin.
> Has anyone seen this before. I had the client install SQL sp 4 on his
> workstation.|||All databases, we did further checking if we give sysadmin privalages to the
user they can see the databases. I also found out this issue occurred
earlier and another DBA resolved the issue with a reboot of the sql server.
THis time a reboot did not work. I verified the user has access to his
default database on the server
"Jerry Spivey" wrote:
> System or user-defined databases? System databases can be hidden in the
> registration properties. Does the user have permissions to the user-defined
> databases (i.e., a database user account)?
> HTH
> Jerry
> "T Man" <TMan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BF678997-E93D-4FC4-8AE2-1451136068AA@.microsoft.com...
> > SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 4
> > Client is using XP Service Pack 1
> >
> > When the user opens the database folder in EM no databases appear.
> > However,
> > I have XP Service Pack 1 and I can see all the databases. The difference
> > is
> > I am a SysAdmin.
> >
> > Has anyone seen this before. I had the client install SQL sp 4 on his
> > workstation.
>
>|||Have you tried deleting and re-registering the SQL Server?
"T Man" <TMan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:447CCB04-487E-43AF-93F7-F5E4DF058E1F@.microsoft.com...
> All databases, we did further checking if we give sysadmin privalages to
> the
> user they can see the databases. I also found out this issue occurred
> earlier and another DBA resolved the issue with a reboot of the sql
> server.
> THis time a reboot did not work. I verified the user has access to his
> default database on the server
> "Jerry Spivey" wrote:
>> System or user-defined databases? System databases can be hidden in the
>> registration properties. Does the user have permissions to the
>> user-defined
>> databases (i.e., a database user account)?
>> HTH
>> Jerry
>> "T Man" <TMan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:BF678997-E93D-4FC4-8AE2-1451136068AA@.microsoft.com...
>> > SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 4
>> > Client is using XP Service Pack 1
>> >
>> > When the user opens the database folder in EM no databases appear.
>> > However,
>> > I have XP Service Pack 1 and I can see all the databases. The
>> > difference
>> > is
>> > I am a SysAdmin.
>> >
>> > Has anyone seen this before. I had the client install SQL sp 4 on his
>> > workstation.
>>

Databases Marked "Suspect"

What can be done to recover a database that has been marked "suspect."
I know this is a loaded question, so here are the details;
The client had a hardware failure and after resolving the failure, in
recovering their databases discovered they had only been backing up the .mdf
files, and not their associated .ldf files.
When Enterprise Manager is brought back up, the database is marked
"suspect," likely due to the missing logfiles. What can be done to get the
database back to a consistent state at that point?
Thanks in advance for any input.
- JohnHi John,
The best option is definitely to restore from backup. However if that is
not possible or desirable, I suggest you to call Microsoft Product Support
since it could be complicated depending on the extent of the damage.
Sincerely,
Yih-Yoon Lee [Microsoft]
Microsoft SQL Server Support
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.

Databases in read-only

We have a client with several databases in read-only mode. When we try and take the dbs out of read-only, we get the path to the mdf files may be incorrect, which they are not. SQL 2000, SP3a. Has anybody seen this? The files themselves are not read-only, I gave the network services account full control and still nothing. The issue started when the client lost power, lasst week, the dbs came up suspect. Detach/Attach brought them back up in single user.

Any hep is appreciated.

What was the exact sequence of events after the power failure last week? What were the error log errors when the databases came back as suspect? Why did you/they attempt to detach/attach?

Can you post the T-SQL you're using, and the errors you get back?

Thanks

|||It turned out to be a permissions issue. The account used to start sql server didn't have the correct permissions on the data/log/mssql directories. They had changed domains and I don't think they new exactly what they were doing. I suspect the account was a domain admin before the domain change.

I used detach/attach because sp_resetstatus didn't take them out of suspect mode.

Thanks

Databases folder empty in Enterprise Manager

Hi all,
I have installed MSDE 2000 SP3a on a workstation, as well as SQL Server
client tools on the same machine. When I open Enterprise Manager, the
Databases folder is empty. Even the master database plus other default
databases (msdb, ...) are not shown. I have made sure the "show system
databases and objects" setting is checked. This happens whether I
connect to the MSDE server using the sa account or Windows
authentication. Also the Query Analyzer utility doesn't work as well.
It opens, but the command window has no place to type SQL commands, and
the Object Browser doesn't show any databases.
I also have a number of old databases (.mdf and .ldf files) that I want
to attach to this instance. These databases have been originally
copied from another machine, and have been working on this machine with
a previous installation of SQL Server Personal Edition. When I open
the attach databases window in Enterprise Manager, and select a mdf
file, and click OK, at first nothing happens (no feedback, and the
dialog even doesn't go away) but clicking OK a second time gives an
error message stating that a database with the same name already exists
(and yet the dialog remains open.) Any further actions will take
Enterprise Manager down by a crash.
Then I tried connecting to MSDE using osql.exe, and a "USE master;
SELECT * FROM sysdatabases;" shows the attached db as well, and I can
even switch to that db and select/insert/update/delete data in it. And
using the sp_attach_db stored procedure in osql.exe works without any
errors. But still none of the databases listed in sysdatabases is
shown in Enterprise Manager.
I could go on working in osql.exe but I'm not very knowledgable in
working with MSDE using SQL commands, and I'd rather do the same in
Enterprise Manager. I have the exact same setup on other workstations
and they work beautifully. Upgrding MSDE to SP4 and client tools to
SP3 didn't solve anything as well.
Can someone help me there please?
Thanks!
EhsanThe MSDE edition of SQL Server was developed to answer the needs of some
people who don't want to spend money on buying SQL Server. MSDE is available
to anyone but has some restrictions, some of them are:
- 2 GB maximum capacity
- Doesn't work with Graphic Administration Tools like Enterprise Manager.
The administration must be made by code (T-SQL).
I don't know the kind of needs you have but try to build an Access project
and link the database tables to it. You can build views directly and have
access to table objects.
"ehsan.akhgari@.gmail.com" wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have installed MSDE 2000 SP3a on a workstation, as well as SQL Server
> client tools on the same machine. When I open Enterprise Manager, the
> Databases folder is empty. Even the master database plus other default
> databases (msdb, ...) are not shown. I have made sure the "show system
> databases and objects" setting is checked. This happens whether I
> connect to the MSDE server using the sa account or Windows
> authentication. Also the Query Analyzer utility doesn't work as well.
> It opens, but the command window has no place to type SQL commands, and
> the Object Browser doesn't show any databases.
> I also have a number of old databases (.mdf and .ldf files) that I want
> to attach to this instance. These databases have been originally
> copied from another machine, and have been working on this machine with
> a previous installation of SQL Server Personal Edition. When I open
> the attach databases window in Enterprise Manager, and select a mdf
> file, and click OK, at first nothing happens (no feedback, and the
> dialog even doesn't go away) but clicking OK a second time gives an
> error message stating that a database with the same name already exists
> (and yet the dialog remains open.) Any further actions will take
> Enterprise Manager down by a crash.
> Then I tried connecting to MSDE using osql.exe, and a "USE master;
> SELECT * FROM sysdatabases;" shows the attached db as well, and I can
> even switch to that db and select/insert/update/delete data in it. And
> using the sp_attach_db stored procedure in osql.exe works without any
> errors. But still none of the databases listed in sysdatabases is
> shown in Enterprise Manager.
> I could go on working in osql.exe but I'm not very knowledgable in
> working with MSDE using SQL commands, and I'd rather do the same in
> Enterprise Manager. I have the exact same setup on other workstations
> and they work beautifully. Upgrding MSDE to SP4 and client tools to
> SP3 didn't solve anything as well.
> Can someone help me there please?
> Thanks!
> Ehsan
>|||Thanks for your reply,
I did not know about this restriction for MSDE. That explains
everything now.
Ehsan

database?

I am trying to built a web database using the visual studio web developer 2005 express. client will be able to access the database in the intranet server. I found out that i can built a database using the web developer itself so what is the different from built database using the sql server? so where should i built my database in?I would suggest that you put the SQL Server database on your client's SQL Server. I have no experience with Visual Studio Web Developer Express but, if it's like Pro, there's a "App_Data" folder that allows you to create SQL Server databases (.mdf). You must have SQL Server 2005 express to do this but it's highly unlikely that your client will use SQL Server 2005 Express as their Production copy.

Database vs Schema

We currently have a product in which each client has their own Database. We adjust the connection when a user for that client logs into the system. This system has continued to grow and a good pace, but we have come to a point where failover is taking too long.

Refactoring the Database to handle multiple sites in a single database is not an option because of the time it would take to make the change. So, we are looking for another way in which this could be handle. One idea is to take multiple clients and place them in a single database using a schema to seperate them. (ex. Client A = server1.db1.schema1, Client B = server1.db1.schema2, etc).

Is there another option that would be better, or what kind of performance can we expect if we follow this path? Or, is there a way to decrease the failover time (it appears the problem is the startup of the database on the failover server)?

Thad

You are right that having a large number of databases will increase your fail-over time in a fail-over cluster.

Since you mentioned schemas, you must be on SQL Server 2005. For fail-over time, database mirroring is much faster than fail-over clustering. Database mirroring does require twice the storage space, and the licensing situation is not good compared to an Active/Passive cluster. You would have to mirror each database individually.

Are you failing-over for maintenance, rolling upgrades, etc.? Maintaining and adding dozens of schema in a database would be cumbersome and prone to error. It also has some performance drawbacks, since if you don't properly schema qualify a SP name (from code), or a table name (in an SP), you will have name resolution problems and cache misses.

Depending on the numbers of clients you are talking about, I would think about getting another cluster to split the load.

|||

Currently the failover system is done for disaster recovery scenarios. As for performance. All our inline sql from the client class generate sql similar to

Code Snippet

SELECT [Schema].[Table].[Field] FROM [Schema].[Table]

While a stored procedure is set is setup so it exists in each schema, but the schema name is not used in the sproc body. This is the same method we would use with Views and Functions.

Code Snippet

CREATE PROCEDURE [Schema].[ProcedureName](@.Param INT) AS

BEGIN

SELECT * FROM [Table]

END

Would setting up the schema in this way cause these performance drawbacks. I am thinking that maintaining multiple schema will be as error prone as setting up the single db for each client.

Currently we are talking about approx 1000+ clients.

|||

If your client code can pick up the schema name dynamically from a config file or something, then having a schema for each client as opposed to a database for each client will probably be not much different from a maintenance and configuration perspective.

There may be some negative effects on your buffer cache and procedure cache from this approach. Instead of having one large, normalized table that holds data for all your clients in a single database, you will have one table for each client. You will have multiple copies of the same SP (for different schemas) in your procedure cache.

|||Currently the client already selects the Database so we would just need to add a schema selector to the data selection. So all that is straight forward. And yes we are duplicating the entire database inside a schema.

As for the procedure and data cache, which I am not completely familar with, would it not be the same as multiple database?

I can that this is not the best solution, but I think it may be the best solution given the time and other hardware constraints we have. So, it appears that there are little differences in performance and maintenance that we already deal with.

Database utilities

Are database utilities, such as Crystal Designer, SQL client tools, and DB
Artisan a security risk that should be removed from the system, or is it
more effective to use the security provided by SQL Server? I think that
removal of the database utilities is unnecessary, but I have been asked to
develop software that finds the software and optionally removes it.
One reason why removal of the utilities has negligent value is that software
such as that can easily be used from other media and/or can be installed. I
know there are ways to limit use and installation of software but as far as
I know, there would be only partial security provided by doing that.
I need to learn about SQL Server security. If I am correct about what I say
above, then if I can get suggestions for what to read or read about, then
that would help.Preventing access to database utility software does not in itself provide
data security. One can write and execute a script like the one below using
only a text editor.
Set conn = CreateObject("ADODB.Connection")
conn.Open _
"Provider=SQLOLEDB;" & _
"Data Source=MyServer;" & _
"Integrated Security=SSPI;" & _
"Initial Catalog=MyDatabase;"
conn.Execute "DELETE FROM MyTable"
Of course, the user (Windows authenticated account in this example) must
have the appropriate SQL permissions in order to successfully execute such a
script and that is why attention to database security is important.
That said, it is often desirable to discourage ad-hoc SQL access to
production databases using database tools and utilities. Consider a
non-technical user with the database object permissions needed in order to
use an application. With a separate reporting tool, the user could easily
access the database from outside the application and cause blocking or other
performance problems with a poorly formed query. This is one reason why it
is common to create a separate database for end-user reporting and provide
users with the tools needed to do their job.
Applications sometimes use an application login or role to provide data
access under a security context other than the end user. This approach
provides users with the database permissions needed to use the app yet
prevents adhoc access from outside the context of the application unless the
user's own login has been granted the access and permissions.

> I need to learn about SQL Server security. If I am correct about what I
> say above, then if I can get suggestions for what to read or read about,
> then that would help.
For starters, check out 'Managing Security' topic in the Books Online. If
you don't have the doc installed, you can find it online at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...>
ity_05bt.asp
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Sam Hobbs" <samuel@.social.rr.com_change_social_to_socal> wrote in message
news:e2EmgVP%23FHA.1332@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Are database utilities, such as Crystal Designer, SQL client tools, and DB
> Artisan a security risk that should be removed from the system, or is it
> more effective to use the security provided by SQL Server? I think that
> removal of the database utilities is unnecessary, but I have been asked to
> develop software that finds the software and optionally removes it.
> One reason why removal of the utilities has negligent value is that
> software such as that can easily be used from other media and/or can be
> installed. I know there are ways to limit use and installation of software
> but as far as I know, there would be only partial security provided by
> doing that.
> I need to learn about SQL Server security. If I am correct about what I
> say above, then if I can get suggestions for what to read or read about,
> then that would help.
>|||"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:u0%23ilqQ%23FHA.4092@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Preventing access to database utility software does not in itself provide
> data security. One can write and execute a script like the one below
> using only a text editor.
> Set conn = CreateObject("ADODB.Connection")
> conn.Open _
> "Provider=SQLOLEDB;" & _
> "Data Source=MyServer;" & _
> "Integrated Security=SSPI;" & _
> "Initial Catalog=MyDatabase;"
> conn.Execute "DELETE FROM MyTable"
The script would not actually be executed by the text editor, but otherwise
this is an example of something that would be impractical to remove. The
actual programs would be WScript and CScript. If removal of possibly risky
tools is done to protect thd data, then WScript and CScript would have to be
removed also, which would make all scripts useless. HTML scripting
capability would also have to be removed.

> it is often desirable to discourage ad-hoc SQL access to production
> databases using database tools and utilities. Consider a non-technical
> user with the database object permissions needed in order to use an
> application. With a separate reporting tool, the user could easily access
> the database from outside the application and cause blocking or other
> performance problems with a poorly formed query. This is one reason why
> it is common to create a separate database for end-user reporting and
> provide users with the tools needed to do their job.
I think that perormance is not a typical security matter. Performance
considerations such as this make the problem much more complicated. In those
situations where elimination of possible performance problems require a
security solution different from other security solutions, I think that the
benefits would not justify the cost. I think that performance problems
should not be a primary duty of security and is especially outside the scope
of my project.

> Applications sometimes use an application login or role to provide data
> access under a security context other than the end user. This approach
> provides users with the database permissions needed to use the app yet
> prevents adhoc access from outside the context of the application unless
> the user's own login has been granted the access and permissions.
I do not know if this application's login provides a different security
context; I am not aware of that, but it is worth investigating.
If the application provides the ability to execute a macro during or
immediately following an application, is it possible that the security
context could be changed then? I realize that this might not work for this
particular application, so I am asking only if it might work.
Perhaps it is possible to write a program that changes the security context
then executes the application, but that would be impractical if it requires
a separate login. I need to learn about SQL Server's roles before deciding
to use a solution such as this.
SQL Server's roles seem to be the prefered solution and I will read the
article you specify before I ask any questions about roles.|||> The script would not actually be executed by the text editor, but
> otherwise this is an example of something that would be impractical to
> remove.
You are, of course, completely correct. I should have said "write using any
text editor and execute using standard OS componenets".

> I think that perormance is not a typical security matter. Performance
> considerations such as this make the problem much more complicated. In
> those situations where elimination of possible performance problems
> require a security solution different from other security solutions, I
> think that the benefits would not justify the cost. I think that
> performance problems should not be a primary duty of security and is
> especially outside the scope of my project.
I included issues related to authorized data access because I don't know the
scope of your security project and these considerations could affect your
security analysis and design. In the broader sense, security includes
taking reasonable precautions to ensure that data are accessible by
authorized users. Some companies also include DR under the security
umbrella.

> If the application provides the ability to execute a macro during or
> immediately following an application, is it possible that the security
> context could be changed then? I realize that this might not work for this
> particular application, so I am asking only if it might work.
> Perhaps it is possible to write a program that changes the security
> context then executes the application, but that would be impractical if it
> requires a separate login. I need to learn about SQL Server's roles before
> deciding to use a solution such as this.
>
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'macro'. If you are referring to
SQL script and the script is run by the app immediately after each database
connection, such an approach might allow you to enable an application role.
AFAIK, other 'macro' techniques would require separate accounts.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Sam Hobbs" <samuel@.social.rr.com_change_social_to_socal> wrote in message
news:O8AvMGo%23FHA.272@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:u0%23ilqQ%23FHA.4092@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> The script would not actually be executed by the text editor, but
> otherwise this is an example of something that would be impractical to
> remove. The actual programs would be WScript and CScript. If removal of
> possibly risky tools is done to protect thd data, then WScript and CScript
> would have to be removed also, which would make all scripts useless. HTML
> scripting capability would also have to be removed.
>
> I think that perormance is not a typical security matter. Performance
> considerations such as this make the problem much more complicated. In
> those situations where elimination of possible performance problems
> require a security solution different from other security solutions, I
> think that the benefits would not justify the cost. I think that
> performance problems should not be a primary duty of security and is
> especially outside the scope of my project.
>
> I do not know if this application's login provides a different security
> context; I am not aware of that, but it is worth investigating.
> If the application provides the ability to execute a macro during or
> immediately following an application, is it possible that the security
> context could be changed then? I realize that this might not work for this
> particular application, so I am asking only if it might work.
> Perhaps it is possible to write a program that changes the security
> context then executes the application, but that would be impractical if it
> requires a separate login. I need to learn about SQL Server's roles before
> deciding to use a solution such as this.
> SQL Server's roles seem to be the prefered solution and I will read the
> article you specify before I ask any questions about roles.
>|||"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%23E$%23Noz%23FHA.1676@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'macro'. If you are referring
> to SQL script and the script is run by the app immediately after each
> database connection, such an approach might allow you to enable an
> application role. AFAIK, other 'macro' techniques would require separate
> accounts.
What I meant by macro is that the application (optionally) calls something,
which can be a script, when it gets logged in; therefore the macro is
executed once per execution.
After thinking about it, I realized that that probably won't work, since the
applicaton probably accesses the database prior to the execution of the
login macro.