Thanks
RonnieOn Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:07:27 GMT, Zap wrote:
> Does anyone know how I can password protect XP Professional Control Panel?
> Thanks
> Ronnie
I'm sure someone does, but this is completely off topic in this group.
Showing posts with label protect. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protect. Show all posts
Friday, March 9, 2012
Password protecting XO Profession Control Panel
Does anyone know how I can password protect XP Professional Control Panel?
Thanks
RonnieOn Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:07:27 GMT, Zap wrote:
Thanks
RonnieOn Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:07:27 GMT, Zap wrote:
Password protecting database and keeping on a removable media.
If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Server
2000 strong enough?
Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
they have given this facility in MS Access?
I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect the
database performance?Hi
The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
available on the Internet.
SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want to,
put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
Regards
Mike
"RPK" wrote:
> If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
> sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Server
> 2000 strong enough?
> Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
> they have given this facility in MS Access?
> I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
> Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect the
> database performance?|||> Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
> they have given this facility in MS Access?
Encryption will be a feature in SQL Server 2005. It isn't usually necessary
to encrypt whole SQL Server databases because they normally reside at a data
centre where the requisite level of physical security can be applied.
> Is the password protection of SQL Server
> 2000 strong enough?
Encryption (in Access) uses passwords too. Why would you think Access's
authentication is any more secure than SQL Server's authentication? (It
isn't).
> I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
> Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect the
> database performance?
That's a different problem. You can easily backup or copy a SQL Server
database and encrypt the file(s) with any of various third-party encryption
tools. It's not sensible to run a SQL Server database direct from a removable
disk though.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Mike,
It is a good idea to keep the database on an EFS (NTFS). Can you illustrate
more clearly on how a database file located on NTFS partition be secured so
that it not easily visible even if someone is able to search the DIR.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
> available on the Internet.
> SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want to,
> put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
> Regards
> Mike
> "RPK" wrote:
> > If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
> > sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Server
> > 2000 strong enough?
> >
> > Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
> > they have given this facility in MS Access?
> >
> > I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
> > Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect the
> > database performance?|||Hi
It would be visible if you do a DIR, but you first need to get to the file
system
With EFS, the Certificate present in a specific Active Directory based user
profile gives the user access to the file or directory. Nobody else. You
can't even recover the files if the user looses his/her password.
This is the extreme, but if you want it totally secure, it is the way to go.
There a few articles on EFS on the MS site and a Google search will bring
you a lot too.
This is an OS solution, for an OS problem.
Even if you use the encryption facility in SQL Server 2005, a certificate
needs to be present, so the same rules apply as above.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"RPK" <RPK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:645F8E2A-B475-46A7-B68F-A5D5D03FC055@.microsoft.com...
> Mike,
> It is a good idea to keep the database on an EFS (NTFS). Can you
illustrate
> more clearly on how a database file located on NTFS partition be secured
so
> that it not easily visible even if someone is able to search the DIR.
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
> > available on the Internet.
> >
> > SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want
to,
> > put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
> >
> > Regards
> > Mike
> >
> > "RPK" wrote:
> >
> > > If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
> > > sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL
Server
> > > 2000 strong enough?
> > >
> > > Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature,
when
> > > they have given this facility in MS Access?
> > >
> > > I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega
Zip
> > > Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll
effect the
> > > database performance?|||Mike,
My problem is that I want my application and the database hidden so that
even if my client is forced to log-in to windows, there is no risk of
tampering the database. Application behaviour can be changed in many ways,
but how to protect the database and its scheduled backups lying in other
directory.
My client has only one computer in his shop and that is where the
application and the database would reside.
........
Rohit.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> It would be visible if you do a DIR, but you first need to get to the file
> system
> With EFS, the Certificate present in a specific Active Directory based user
> profile gives the user access to the file or directory. Nobody else. You
> can't even recover the files if the user looses his/her password.
> This is the extreme, but if you want it totally secure, it is the way to go.
> There a few articles on EFS on the MS site and a Google search will bring
> you a lot too.
> This is an OS solution, for an OS problem.
> Even if you use the encryption facility in SQL Server 2005, a certificate
> needs to be present, so the same rules apply as above.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "RPK" <RPK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:645F8E2A-B475-46A7-B68F-A5D5D03FC055@.microsoft.com...
> > Mike,
> >
> > It is a good idea to keep the database on an EFS (NTFS). Can you
> illustrate
> > more clearly on how a database file located on NTFS partition be secured
> so
> > that it not easily visible even if someone is able to search the DIR.
> >
> > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
> > > available on the Internet.
> > >
> > > SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want
> to,
> > > put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > "RPK" wrote:
> > >
> > > > If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
> > > > sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL
> Server
> > > > 2000 strong enough?
> > > >
> > > > Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature,
> when
> > > > they have given this facility in MS Access?
> > > >
> > > > I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega
> Zip
> > > > Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll
> effect the
> > > > database performance?
>
>
sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Server
2000 strong enough?
Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
they have given this facility in MS Access?
I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect the
database performance?Hi
The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
available on the Internet.
SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want to,
put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
Regards
Mike
"RPK" wrote:
> If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
> sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Server
> 2000 strong enough?
> Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
> they have given this facility in MS Access?
> I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
> Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect the
> database performance?|||> Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
> they have given this facility in MS Access?
Encryption will be a feature in SQL Server 2005. It isn't usually necessary
to encrypt whole SQL Server databases because they normally reside at a data
centre where the requisite level of physical security can be applied.
> Is the password protection of SQL Server
> 2000 strong enough?
Encryption (in Access) uses passwords too. Why would you think Access's
authentication is any more secure than SQL Server's authentication? (It
isn't).
> I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
> Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect the
> database performance?
That's a different problem. You can easily backup or copy a SQL Server
database and encrypt the file(s) with any of various third-party encryption
tools. It's not sensible to run a SQL Server database direct from a removable
disk though.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Mike,
It is a good idea to keep the database on an EFS (NTFS). Can you illustrate
more clearly on how a database file located on NTFS partition be secured so
that it not easily visible even if someone is able to search the DIR.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
> available on the Internet.
> SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want to,
> put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
> Regards
> Mike
> "RPK" wrote:
> > If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
> > sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Server
> > 2000 strong enough?
> >
> > Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
> > they have given this facility in MS Access?
> >
> > I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
> > Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect the
> > database performance?|||Hi
It would be visible if you do a DIR, but you first need to get to the file
system
With EFS, the Certificate present in a specific Active Directory based user
profile gives the user access to the file or directory. Nobody else. You
can't even recover the files if the user looses his/her password.
This is the extreme, but if you want it totally secure, it is the way to go.
There a few articles on EFS on the MS site and a Google search will bring
you a lot too.
This is an OS solution, for an OS problem.
Even if you use the encryption facility in SQL Server 2005, a certificate
needs to be present, so the same rules apply as above.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"RPK" <RPK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:645F8E2A-B475-46A7-B68F-A5D5D03FC055@.microsoft.com...
> Mike,
> It is a good idea to keep the database on an EFS (NTFS). Can you
illustrate
> more clearly on how a database file located on NTFS partition be secured
so
> that it not easily visible even if someone is able to search the DIR.
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
> > available on the Internet.
> >
> > SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want
to,
> > put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
> >
> > Regards
> > Mike
> >
> > "RPK" wrote:
> >
> > > If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
> > > sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL
Server
> > > 2000 strong enough?
> > >
> > > Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature,
when
> > > they have given this facility in MS Access?
> > >
> > > I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega
Zip
> > > Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll
effect the
> > > database performance?|||Mike,
My problem is that I want my application and the database hidden so that
even if my client is forced to log-in to windows, there is no risk of
tampering the database. Application behaviour can be changed in many ways,
but how to protect the database and its scheduled backups lying in other
directory.
My client has only one computer in his shop and that is where the
application and the database would reside.
........
Rohit.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> It would be visible if you do a DIR, but you first need to get to the file
> system
> With EFS, the Certificate present in a specific Active Directory based user
> profile gives the user access to the file or directory. Nobody else. You
> can't even recover the files if the user looses his/her password.
> This is the extreme, but if you want it totally secure, it is the way to go.
> There a few articles on EFS on the MS site and a Google search will bring
> you a lot too.
> This is an OS solution, for an OS problem.
> Even if you use the encryption facility in SQL Server 2005, a certificate
> needs to be present, so the same rules apply as above.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "RPK" <RPK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:645F8E2A-B475-46A7-B68F-A5D5D03FC055@.microsoft.com...
> > Mike,
> >
> > It is a good idea to keep the database on an EFS (NTFS). Can you
> illustrate
> > more clearly on how a database file located on NTFS partition be secured
> so
> > that it not easily visible even if someone is able to search the DIR.
> >
> > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
> > > available on the Internet.
> > >
> > > SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want
> to,
> > > put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > "RPK" wrote:
> > >
> > > > If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
> > > > sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL
> Server
> > > > 2000 strong enough?
> > > >
> > > > Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature,
> when
> > > > they have given this facility in MS Access?
> > > >
> > > > I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega
> Zip
> > > > Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll
> effect the
> > > > database performance?
>
>
Password protecting database and keeping on a removable media.
If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Server
2000 strong enough?
Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
they have given this facility in MS Access?
I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect th
e
database performance?The database password feature in Access is utterly worthless (as is
Access security in general). Google it sometime -- there are thousands
of hits of services offering to bypass it for you. Ditto Access
encryption. It was designed to prevent an mdb from being opened in a
text editor and strings read out of it. Anyone with a copy of Access
can open an encrypted mdb.
For information on SQL Server security, see the following links:
SQL Server Security
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...t.com/security/
Mary
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:25:02 -0800, RPK
<RPK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
>sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Serve
r
>2000 strong enough?
>Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
>they have given this facility in MS Access?
>I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
>Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect t
he
>database performance?
sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Server
2000 strong enough?
Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
they have given this facility in MS Access?
I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect th
e
database performance?The database password feature in Access is utterly worthless (as is
Access security in general). Google it sometime -- there are thousands
of hits of services offering to bypass it for you. Ditto Access
encryption. It was designed to prevent an mdb from being opened in a
text editor and strings read out of it. Anyone with a copy of Access
can open an encrypted mdb.
For information on SQL Server security, see the following links:
SQL Server Security
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...t.com/security/
Mary
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:25:02 -0800, RPK
<RPK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
>sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Serve
r
>2000 strong enough?
>Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
>they have given this facility in MS Access?
>I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
>Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect t
he
>database performance?
Password protecting database and keeping on a removable media.
If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Server
2000 strong enough?
Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
they have given this facility in MS Access?
I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect the
database performance?
Hi
The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
available on the Internet.
SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want to,
put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
Regards
Mike
"RPK" wrote:
> If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
> sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Server
> 2000 strong enough?
> Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
> they have given this facility in MS Access?
> I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
> Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect the
> database performance?
|||> Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
> they have given this facility in MS Access?
Encryption will be a feature in SQL Server 2005. It isn't usually necessary
to encrypt whole SQL Server databases because they normally reside at a data
centre where the requisite level of physical security can be applied.
> Is the password protection of SQL Server
> 2000 strong enough?
Encryption (in Access) uses passwords too. Why would you think Access's
authentication is any more secure than SQL Server's authentication? (It
isn't).
> I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
> Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect the
> database performance?
That's a different problem. You can easily backup or copy a SQL Server
database and encrypt the file(s) with any of various third-party encryption
tools. It's not sensible to run a SQL Server database direct from a removable
disk though.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Mike,
It is a good idea to keep the database on an EFS (NTFS). Can you illustrate
more clearly on how a database file located on NTFS partition be secured so
that it not easily visible even if someone is able to search the DIR.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
> available on the Internet.
> SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want to,
> put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
> Regards
> Mike
> "RPK" wrote:
|||Hi
It would be visible if you do a DIR, but you first need to get to the file
system
With EFS, the Certificate present in a specific Active Directory based user
profile gives the user access to the file or directory. Nobody else. You
can't even recover the files if the user looses his/her password.
This is the extreme, but if you want it totally secure, it is the way to go.
There a few articles on EFS on the MS site and a Google search will bring
you a lot too.
This is an OS solution, for an OS problem.
Even if you use the encryption facility in SQL Server 2005, a certificate
needs to be present, so the same rules apply as above.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"RPK" <RPK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:645F8E2A-B475-46A7-B68F-A5D5D03FC055@.microsoft.com...
> Mike,
> It is a good idea to keep the database on an EFS (NTFS). Can you
illustrate
> more clearly on how a database file located on NTFS partition be secured
so[vbcol=seagreen]
> that it not easily visible even if someone is able to search the DIR.
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
to,[vbcol=seagreen]
Server[vbcol=seagreen]
when[vbcol=seagreen]
Zip[vbcol=seagreen]
effect the[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Mike,
My problem is that I want my application and the database hidden so that
even if my client is forced to log-in to windows, there is no risk of
tampering the database. Application behaviour can be changed in many ways,
but how to protect the database and its scheduled backups lying in other
directory.
My client has only one computer in his shop and that is where the
application and the database would reside.
.........
Rohit.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> It would be visible if you do a DIR, but you first need to get to the file
> system
> With EFS, the Certificate present in a specific Active Directory based user
> profile gives the user access to the file or directory. Nobody else. You
> can't even recover the files if the user looses his/her password.
> This is the extreme, but if you want it totally secure, it is the way to go.
> There a few articles on EFS on the MS site and a Google search will bring
> you a lot too.
> This is an OS solution, for an OS problem.
> Even if you use the encryption facility in SQL Server 2005, a certificate
> needs to be present, so the same rules apply as above.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "RPK" <RPK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:645F8E2A-B475-46A7-B68F-A5D5D03FC055@.microsoft.com...
> illustrate
> so
> to,
> Server
> when
> Zip
> effect the
>
>
sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Server
2000 strong enough?
Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
they have given this facility in MS Access?
I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect the
database performance?
Hi
The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
available on the Internet.
SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want to,
put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
Regards
Mike
"RPK" wrote:
> If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
> sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Server
> 2000 strong enough?
> Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
> they have given this facility in MS Access?
> I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
> Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect the
> database performance?
|||> Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
> they have given this facility in MS Access?
Encryption will be a feature in SQL Server 2005. It isn't usually necessary
to encrypt whole SQL Server databases because they normally reside at a data
centre where the requisite level of physical security can be applied.
> Is the password protection of SQL Server
> 2000 strong enough?
Encryption (in Access) uses passwords too. Why would you think Access's
authentication is any more secure than SQL Server's authentication? (It
isn't).
> I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
> Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect the
> database performance?
That's a different problem. You can easily backup or copy a SQL Server
database and encrypt the file(s) with any of various third-party encryption
tools. It's not sensible to run a SQL Server database direct from a removable
disk though.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Mike,
It is a good idea to keep the database on an EFS (NTFS). Can you illustrate
more clearly on how a database file located on NTFS partition be secured so
that it not easily visible even if someone is able to search the DIR.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
> available on the Internet.
> SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want to,
> put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
> Regards
> Mike
> "RPK" wrote:
|||Hi
It would be visible if you do a DIR, but you first need to get to the file
system
With EFS, the Certificate present in a specific Active Directory based user
profile gives the user access to the file or directory. Nobody else. You
can't even recover the files if the user looses his/her password.
This is the extreme, but if you want it totally secure, it is the way to go.
There a few articles on EFS on the MS site and a Google search will bring
you a lot too.
This is an OS solution, for an OS problem.
Even if you use the encryption facility in SQL Server 2005, a certificate
needs to be present, so the same rules apply as above.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"RPK" <RPK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:645F8E2A-B475-46A7-B68F-A5D5D03FC055@.microsoft.com...
> Mike,
> It is a good idea to keep the database on an EFS (NTFS). Can you
illustrate
> more clearly on how a database file located on NTFS partition be secured
so[vbcol=seagreen]
> that it not easily visible even if someone is able to search the DIR.
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
to,[vbcol=seagreen]
Server[vbcol=seagreen]
when[vbcol=seagreen]
Zip[vbcol=seagreen]
effect the[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Mike,
My problem is that I want my application and the database hidden so that
even if my client is forced to log-in to windows, there is no risk of
tampering the database. Application behaviour can be changed in many ways,
but how to protect the database and its scheduled backups lying in other
directory.
My client has only one computer in his shop and that is where the
application and the database would reside.
.........
Rohit.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> It would be visible if you do a DIR, but you first need to get to the file
> system
> With EFS, the Certificate present in a specific Active Directory based user
> profile gives the user access to the file or directory. Nobody else. You
> can't even recover the files if the user looses his/her password.
> This is the extreme, but if you want it totally secure, it is the way to go.
> There a few articles on EFS on the MS site and a Google search will bring
> you a lot too.
> This is an OS solution, for an OS problem.
> Even if you use the encryption facility in SQL Server 2005, a certificate
> needs to be present, so the same rules apply as above.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "RPK" <RPK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:645F8E2A-B475-46A7-B68F-A5D5D03FC055@.microsoft.com...
> illustrate
> so
> to,
> Server
> when
> Zip
> effect the
>
>
Password protecting database and keeping on a removable media.
If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Server
2000 strong enough?
Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
they have given this facility in MS Access?
I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect th
e
database performance?Hi
The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
available on the Internet.
SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want to,
put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
Regards
Mike
"RPK" wrote:
> If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
> sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Serv
er
> 2000 strong enough?
> Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
> they have given this facility in MS Access?
> I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
> Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect
the
> database performance?|||> Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
> they have given this facility in MS Access?
Encryption will be a feature in SQL Server 2005. It isn't usually necessary
to encrypt whole SQL Server databases because they normally reside at a data
centre where the requisite level of physical security can be applied.
> Is the password protection of SQL Server
> 2000 strong enough?
Encryption (in Access) uses passwords too. Why would you think Access's
authentication is any more secure than SQL Server's authentication? (It
isn't).
> I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
> Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect
the
> database performance?
That's a different problem. You can easily backup or copy a SQL Server
database and encrypt the file(s) with any of various third-party encryption
tools. It's not sensible to run a SQL Server database direct from a removabl
e
disk though.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Mike,
It is a good idea to keep the database on an EFS (NTFS). Can you illustrate
more clearly on how a database file located on NTFS partition be secured so
that it not easily visible even if someone is able to search the DIR.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
> available on the Internet.
> SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want t
o,
> put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
> Regards
> Mike
> "RPK" wrote:
>|||Hi
It would be visible if you do a DIR, but you first need to get to the file
system
With EFS, the Certificate present in a specific Active Directory based user
profile gives the user access to the file or directory. Nobody else. You
can't even recover the files if the user looses his/her password.
This is the extreme, but if you want it totally secure, it is the way to go.
There a few articles on EFS on the MS site and a Google search will bring
you a lot too.
This is an OS solution, for an OS problem.
Even if you use the encryption facility in SQL Server 2005, a certificate
needs to be present, so the same rules apply as above.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"RPK" <RPK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:645F8E2A-B475-46A7-B68F-A5D5D03FC055@.microsoft.com...
> Mike,
> It is a good idea to keep the database on an EFS (NTFS). Can you
illustrate
> more clearly on how a database file located on NTFS partition be secured
so[vbcol=seagreen]
> that it not easily visible even if someone is able to search the DIR.
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>
to,[vbcol=seagreen]
Server[vbcol=seagreen]
when[vbcol=seagreen]
Zip[vbcol=seagreen]
effect the[vbcol=seagreen]|||Mike,
My problem is that I want my application and the database hidden so that
even if my client is forced to log-in to windows, there is no risk of
tampering the database. Application behaviour can be changed in many ways,
but how to protect the database and its scheduled backups lying in other
directory.
My client has only one computer in his shop and that is where the
application and the database would reside.
........
Rohit.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> It would be visible if you do a DIR, but you first need to get to the file
> system
> With EFS, the Certificate present in a specific Active Directory based use
r
> profile gives the user access to the file or directory. Nobody else. You
> can't even recover the files if the user looses his/her password.
> This is the extreme, but if you want it totally secure, it is the way to g
o.
> There a few articles on EFS on the MS site and a Google search will bring
> you a lot too.
> This is an OS solution, for an OS problem.
> Even if you use the encryption facility in SQL Server 2005, a certificate
> needs to be present, so the same rules apply as above.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "RPK" <RPK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:645F8E2A-B475-46A7-B68F-A5D5D03FC055@.microsoft.com...
> illustrate
> so
> to,
> Server
> when
> Zip
> effect the
>
>
sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Server
2000 strong enough?
Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
they have given this facility in MS Access?
I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect th
e
database performance?Hi
The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
available on the Internet.
SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want to,
put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
Regards
Mike
"RPK" wrote:
> If I only use 'Password Protection' for my SQL Server Database, is it
> sufficient to protect the database? Is the password protection of SQL Serv
er
> 2000 strong enough?
> Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
> they have given this facility in MS Access?
> I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
> Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect
the
> database performance?|||> Why SQL Server 2000 does not possess 'Encrypting Database' feature, when
> they have given this facility in MS Access?
Encryption will be a feature in SQL Server 2005. It isn't usually necessary
to encrypt whole SQL Server databases because they normally reside at a data
centre where the requisite level of physical security can be applied.
> Is the password protection of SQL Server
> 2000 strong enough?
Encryption (in Access) uses passwords too. Why would you think Access's
authentication is any more secure than SQL Server's authentication? (It
isn't).
> I am thinking to keep the database on a removable media like Iomega Zip
> Drive so that my client can carry the disk with him, but how it'll effect
the
> database performance?
That's a different problem. You can easily backup or copy a SQL Server
database and encrypt the file(s) with any of various third-party encryption
tools. It's not sensible to run a SQL Server database direct from a removabl
e
disk though.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Mike,
It is a good idea to keep the database on an EFS (NTFS). Can you illustrate
more clearly on how a database file located on NTFS partition be secured so
that it not easily visible even if someone is able to search the DIR.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> The Access encryption protection is easily broken. Tools are freely
> available on the Internet.
> SQL Server relies on physical security, plus authentication. If you want t
o,
> put the DB on an NTFS formatted drive with Encrption (EFS).
> Regards
> Mike
> "RPK" wrote:
>|||Hi
It would be visible if you do a DIR, but you first need to get to the file
system
With EFS, the Certificate present in a specific Active Directory based user
profile gives the user access to the file or directory. Nobody else. You
can't even recover the files if the user looses his/her password.
This is the extreme, but if you want it totally secure, it is the way to go.
There a few articles on EFS on the MS site and a Google search will bring
you a lot too.
This is an OS solution, for an OS problem.
Even if you use the encryption facility in SQL Server 2005, a certificate
needs to be present, so the same rules apply as above.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"RPK" <RPK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:645F8E2A-B475-46A7-B68F-A5D5D03FC055@.microsoft.com...
> Mike,
> It is a good idea to keep the database on an EFS (NTFS). Can you
illustrate
> more clearly on how a database file located on NTFS partition be secured
so[vbcol=seagreen]
> that it not easily visible even if someone is able to search the DIR.
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>
to,[vbcol=seagreen]
Server[vbcol=seagreen]
when[vbcol=seagreen]
Zip[vbcol=seagreen]
effect the[vbcol=seagreen]|||Mike,
My problem is that I want my application and the database hidden so that
even if my client is forced to log-in to windows, there is no risk of
tampering the database. Application behaviour can be changed in many ways,
but how to protect the database and its scheduled backups lying in other
directory.
My client has only one computer in his shop and that is where the
application and the database would reside.
........
Rohit.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> It would be visible if you do a DIR, but you first need to get to the file
> system
> With EFS, the Certificate present in a specific Active Directory based use
r
> profile gives the user access to the file or directory. Nobody else. You
> can't even recover the files if the user looses his/her password.
> This is the extreme, but if you want it totally secure, it is the way to g
o.
> There a few articles on EFS on the MS site and a Google search will bring
> you a lot too.
> This is an OS solution, for an OS problem.
> Even if you use the encryption facility in SQL Server 2005, a certificate
> needs to be present, so the same rules apply as above.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "RPK" <RPK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:645F8E2A-B475-46A7-B68F-A5D5D03FC055@.microsoft.com...
> illustrate
> so
> to,
> Server
> when
> Zip
> effect the
>
>
Password Protect SQL SERVER
We have a database that we distribute for our application
to customers. We add users to a user table to allow
access to the web application only. How can I protect the
database with a secret password that only we know and the
customer can only access the data and use the database
but cannot get to the database using EM or Query Analyser
unless he knwos the password.
Help is appreciated.
I am new to all this so if some one could please guide me
to the right direction.
Thansk a lot.If they own the server and are sa then you can't. sa can see or do
everything on the server.
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"HP" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:a26901c3eb2c$e9d5d7e0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
user in the user table which will let them get to the
application if a valid user.
If they plan on buying sql server on thir own and putting
in our database is their a way we can stop them from
reading the database and egtting to its structure by
password protecting the database on the msde or by
encrypting the database.
can see or do
message
on to their box as the local admin they are essentially sa. You can remove
that account but that won't really stop someone from getting at it if they
want and have rights to the physical machine. The real answer here has
always been to make sure you have a good copywrite, NDA etc to cover this
area. There are some 3rd party tools to encrypt the db but it can be a real
hassle and in the long run I am not sure how effective it is. Take a look
on google for past posts regarding encryption and sql server for more
details.
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:a63401c3eb5b$e253f450$a601280a@.phx.gbl...[QUOTE]
> We are the sa. We give to the customer MSDE with an added
> user in the user table which will let them get to the
> application if a valid user.
> If they plan on buying sql server on thir own and putting
> in our database is their a way we can stop them from
> reading the database and egtting to its structure by
> password protecting the database on the msde or by
> encrypting the database.
>
> can see or do
> message
> application
> the
> the
> Analyser
> me|||It is a serious weakness in MSSQL. There is no answer as far as we know.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:u25zg#16DHA.2472@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> By default there is a local NT admin account that is also sa. If they log
> on to their box as the local admin they are essentially sa. You can
remove
> that account but that won't really stop someone from getting at it if they
> want and have rights to the physical machine. The real answer here has
> always been to make sure you have a good copywrite, NDA etc to cover this
> area. There are some 3rd party tools to encrypt the db but it can be a
real
> hassle and in the long run I am not sure how effective it is. Take a look
> on google for past posts regarding encryption and sql server for more
> details.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:a63401c3eb5b$e253f450$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
>
to customers. We add users to a user table to allow
access to the web application only. How can I protect the
database with a secret password that only we know and the
customer can only access the data and use the database
but cannot get to the database using EM or Query Analyser
unless he knwos the password.
Help is appreciated.
I am new to all this so if some one could please guide me
to the right direction.
Thansk a lot.If they own the server and are sa then you can't. sa can see or do
everything on the server.
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"HP" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:a26901c3eb2c$e9d5d7e0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
quote:|||We are the sa. We give to the customer MSDE with an added
> We have a database that we distribute for our application
> to customers. We add users to a user table to allow
> access to the web application only. How can I protect the
> database with a secret password that only we know and the
> customer can only access the data and use the database
> but cannot get to the database using EM or Query Analyser
> unless he knwos the password.
> Help is appreciated.
> I am new to all this so if some one could please guide me
> to the right direction.
> Thansk a lot.
user in the user table which will let them get to the
application if a valid user.
If they plan on buying sql server on thir own and putting
in our database is their a way we can stop them from
reading the database and egtting to its structure by
password protecting the database on the msde or by
encrypting the database.
quote:
>--Original Message--
>If they own the server and are sa then you can't. sa
can see or do
quote:
>everything on the server.
>--
>Andrew J. Kelly
>SQL Server MVP
>
>"HP" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
quote:|||By default there is a local NT admin account that is also sa. If they log
>news:a26901c3eb2c$e9d5d7e0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
application[QUOTE]
the[QUOTE]
the[QUOTE]
Analyser[QUOTE]
me[QUOTE]
>
>.
>
on to their box as the local admin they are essentially sa. You can remove
that account but that won't really stop someone from getting at it if they
want and have rights to the physical machine. The real answer here has
always been to make sure you have a good copywrite, NDA etc to cover this
area. There are some 3rd party tools to encrypt the db but it can be a real
hassle and in the long run I am not sure how effective it is. Take a look
on google for past posts regarding encryption and sql server for more
details.
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:a63401c3eb5b$e253f450$a601280a@.phx.gbl...[QUOTE]
> We are the sa. We give to the customer MSDE with an added
> user in the user table which will let them get to the
> application if a valid user.
> If they plan on buying sql server on thir own and putting
> in our database is their a way we can stop them from
> reading the database and egtting to its structure by
> password protecting the database on the msde or by
> encrypting the database.
>
> can see or do
> message
> application
> the
> the
> Analyser
> me|||It is a serious weakness in MSSQL. There is no answer as far as we know.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:u25zg#16DHA.2472@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> By default there is a local NT admin account that is also sa. If they log
> on to their box as the local admin they are essentially sa. You can
remove
> that account but that won't really stop someone from getting at it if they
> want and have rights to the physical machine. The real answer here has
> always been to make sure you have a good copywrite, NDA etc to cover this
> area. There are some 3rd party tools to encrypt the db but it can be a
real
> hassle and in the long run I am not sure how effective it is. Take a look
> on google for past posts regarding encryption and sql server for more
> details.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:a63401c3eb5b$e253f450$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
>
Password protect report design
Can I password protect a released CR so that the report cannot be opened in design mode?
I am using CR10 advanced developerMe too looking to resolve this issue. This is what I know so far as far as making it read only part is concerned. For protecting I remember seeing a note through Business Objects that there is no way to protect these reports. They are editable as long as if end user has Crystal Report software of his own.
Making a report or object read-only
You can make a report or object read-only so it can't be formatted. When you set this option, choices in the Format Editor become inactive. The formatting options that are usually available on the toolbars or shortcut menus are also suppressed for the report or object.
Note: This feature is for your convenience in protecting report formatting; it is not intended to be used as report security.
To make a report read-only
On the File menu, select Report Options.
Select Read-only.
To make an object read-only
Right-click the object you want to make read-only.
On the shortcut menu, click Format Editor.
The Format Editor dialog box appears.
On the Common tab, select Read-only.
Note: You can also do this by clicking the Lock Format button on the Formatting toolbar.|||Yea thanks dilemma for that, I have got that far but want to protect all my hard work on formula's etc because if I create a report and want to issue on a try before you buy, then I need some lockdown. I have also posted on CR forum but I won't hold my breath !!|||I had come across this situation and finally decided to distribute reports but charge clients if they want support of our own reports. Support cost covers my development cost.
It's interesting , even I am interested to know the answer.
Thanks|||I have had a reply from a CR forum, very concise..answer is: -
NO
I think CR should do this feature in next release.|||Absolutely I agree with you.
I am using CR10 advanced developerMe too looking to resolve this issue. This is what I know so far as far as making it read only part is concerned. For protecting I remember seeing a note through Business Objects that there is no way to protect these reports. They are editable as long as if end user has Crystal Report software of his own.
Making a report or object read-only
You can make a report or object read-only so it can't be formatted. When you set this option, choices in the Format Editor become inactive. The formatting options that are usually available on the toolbars or shortcut menus are also suppressed for the report or object.
Note: This feature is for your convenience in protecting report formatting; it is not intended to be used as report security.
To make a report read-only
On the File menu, select Report Options.
Select Read-only.
To make an object read-only
Right-click the object you want to make read-only.
On the shortcut menu, click Format Editor.
The Format Editor dialog box appears.
On the Common tab, select Read-only.
Note: You can also do this by clicking the Lock Format button on the Formatting toolbar.|||Yea thanks dilemma for that, I have got that far but want to protect all my hard work on formula's etc because if I create a report and want to issue on a try before you buy, then I need some lockdown. I have also posted on CR forum but I won't hold my breath !!|||I had come across this situation and finally decided to distribute reports but charge clients if they want support of our own reports. Support cost covers my development cost.
It's interesting , even I am interested to know the answer.
Thanks|||I have had a reply from a CR forum, very concise..answer is: -
NO
I think CR should do this feature in next release.|||Absolutely I agree with you.
Password Protect excel
I want to deliver reports in Excel format via a data-driven subscription to a
fileshare. Can I password-protect the Excel files?To my knowledge, password protection for excel rendering isn't supported in
RS. You can probably render to a folder location and write a FileWatcher or
service to custom manipulate the rendered excel reports in order to password
protect.
Adrian M.
"Dave Morrow" <DaveMorrow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1D098B85-B9E0-4F92-9C6D-6F918F96706F@.microsoft.com...
>I want to deliver reports in Excel format via a data-driven subscription to
>a
> fileshare. Can I password-protect the Excel files?
fileshare. Can I password-protect the Excel files?To my knowledge, password protection for excel rendering isn't supported in
RS. You can probably render to a folder location and write a FileWatcher or
service to custom manipulate the rendered excel reports in order to password
protect.
Adrian M.
"Dave Morrow" <DaveMorrow@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1D098B85-B9E0-4F92-9C6D-6F918F96706F@.microsoft.com...
>I want to deliver reports in Excel format via a data-driven subscription to
>a
> fileshare. Can I password-protect the Excel files?
Password Protect Crystal Report
Hi, everyone -
This may be a rather simple query, but I'm going to put it out there:
We're using Crystal Report Version 8.5 at work, and I have created several reports that I would like to password protect because of personnel issues. Can someone help me out in terms of how I can password protect a document in Crystal? Thanks so much............. :confused:As far as I know it's not possible.
This may be a rather simple query, but I'm going to put it out there:
We're using Crystal Report Version 8.5 at work, and I have created several reports that I would like to password protect because of personnel issues. Can someone help me out in terms of how I can password protect a document in Crystal? Thanks so much............. :confused:As far as I know it's not possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)