Hi
I have a problem. I have a database with way to many stored procedures. In
order delete some i made a script that finds stored procedures and their
dependencies. Those without any dependencies should be deleted because they
typically have been emptied for logic.
But unfortunately if there is a 'INSERT INTO #TEMP (FIELD1) SELECT Field1
FROM TABLE_1' there is no dependency for table TABLE_1. If the INSERT INTO
uses a normal table or a table variable there is a dependency.
My example below turns out to have no dependecies as all even though the
table exists up front and the procedure has been executed succesfully.
Example: --
CREATE PROCEDURE Test3 AS
Create Table #no (
i int
)
Insert into #no (i) Select top 10 ID from table_1
Select * from #no
Drop table #no
--
This is a problem for me because a lot of my reports collect data from
several tables and insert them into temp tables. But effectively they will
show up with no dependencies and therefor be subject for deletion.
Remodelling all stored procedures to use table variables is no option.
This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error in
the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.> This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error
> in
> the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
One of the reasons dependency information may be missing is due to deferred
name resolution. Since the temp table does not exist when the proc is
created, no dependency info is recorded for any objects referenced by the
INSERT statement.
> Remodelling all stored procedures to use table variables is no option.
If you create the temp table before creating the proc, you should get the
dependency info.
> This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error
> in
> the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
Although one could make the argument that this is a bug, it's unclear to me
what the correct behavior should be when a statement contains a mix of
existing and non-existing objects. You might consider submitting product
enhancement feedback via Connect (http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer) to
suggest that known dependency information be recorded when a statement
contains a mix of existing and non-existing objects. Perhaps this will make
it into the next SQL Server version or future service pack.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Karsten Feddersen, Denmark" <Karsten Feddersen,
Denmark@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48D61C0B-5635-4137-A3E8-C7A7CC16796F@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I have a problem. I have a database with way to many stored procedures. In
> order delete some i made a script that finds stored procedures and their
> dependencies. Those without any dependencies should be deleted because
> they
> typically have been emptied for logic.
> But unfortunately if there is a 'INSERT INTO #TEMP (FIELD1) SELECT Field1
> FROM TABLE_1' there is no dependency for table TABLE_1. If the INSERT INTO
> uses a normal table or a table variable there is a dependency.
> My example below turns out to have no dependecies as all even though the
> table exists up front and the procedure has been executed succesfully.
> Example: --
> CREATE PROCEDURE Test3 AS
> Create Table #no (
> i int
> )
> Insert into #no (i) Select top 10 ID from table_1
> Select * from #no
> Drop table #no
> --
> This is a problem for me because a lot of my reports collect data from
> several tables and insert them into temp tables. But effectively they will
> show up with no dependencies and therefor be subject for deletion.
> Remodelling all stored procedures to use table variables is no option.
> This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error
> in
> the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.sql
Showing posts with label delete. Show all posts
Showing posts with label delete. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2012
No dependencies when inserting data into a #temp table
Hi
I have a problem. I have a database with way to many stored procedures. In
order delete some i made a script that finds stored procedures and their
dependencies. Those without any dependencies should be deleted because they
typically have been emptied for logic.
But unfortunately if there is a 'INSERT INTO #TEMP (FIELD1) SELECT Field1
FROM TABLE_1' there is no dependency for table TABLE_1. If the INSERT INTO
uses a normal table or a table variable there is a dependency.
My example below turns out to have no dependecies as all even though the
table exists up front and the procedure has been executed succesfully.
Example: --
CREATE PROCEDURE Test3 AS
Create Table #no (
i int
)
Insert into #no (i) Select top 10 ID from table_1
Select * from #no
Drop table #no
--
This is a problem for me because a lot of my reports collect data from
several tables and insert them into temp tables. But effectively they will
show up with no dependencies and therefor be subject for deletion.
Remodelling all stored procedures to use table variables is no option.
This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error in
the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.> This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error
> in
> the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
One of the reasons dependency information may be missing is due to deferred
name resolution. Since the temp table does not exist when the proc is
created, no dependency info is recorded for any objects referenced by the
INSERT statement.
> Remodelling all stored procedures to use table variables is no option.
If you create the temp table before creating the proc, you should get the
dependency info.
> This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error
> in
> the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
Although one could make the argument that this is a bug, it's unclear to me
what the correct behavior should be when a statement contains a mix of
existing and non-existing objects. You might consider submitting product
enhancement feedback via Connect (http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer) to
suggest that known dependency information be recorded when a statement
contains a mix of existing and non-existing objects. Perhaps this will make
it into the next SQL Server version or future service pack.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Karsten Feddersen, Denmark" <Karsten Feddersen,
Denmark@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48D61C0B-5635-4137-A3E8-C7A7CC16796F@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I have a problem. I have a database with way to many stored procedures. In
> order delete some i made a script that finds stored procedures and their
> dependencies. Those without any dependencies should be deleted because
> they
> typically have been emptied for logic.
> But unfortunately if there is a 'INSERT INTO #TEMP (FIELD1) SELECT Field1
> FROM TABLE_1' there is no dependency for table TABLE_1. If the INSERT INTO
> uses a normal table or a table variable there is a dependency.
> My example below turns out to have no dependecies as all even though the
> table exists up front and the procedure has been executed succesfully.
> Example: --
> CREATE PROCEDURE Test3 AS
> Create Table #no (
> i int
> )
> Insert into #no (i) Select top 10 ID from table_1
> Select * from #no
> Drop table #no
> --
> This is a problem for me because a lot of my reports collect data from
> several tables and insert them into temp tables. But effectively they will
> show up with no dependencies and therefor be subject for deletion.
> Remodelling all stored procedures to use table variables is no option.
> This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error
> in
> the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
I have a problem. I have a database with way to many stored procedures. In
order delete some i made a script that finds stored procedures and their
dependencies. Those without any dependencies should be deleted because they
typically have been emptied for logic.
But unfortunately if there is a 'INSERT INTO #TEMP (FIELD1) SELECT Field1
FROM TABLE_1' there is no dependency for table TABLE_1. If the INSERT INTO
uses a normal table or a table variable there is a dependency.
My example below turns out to have no dependecies as all even though the
table exists up front and the procedure has been executed succesfully.
Example: --
CREATE PROCEDURE Test3 AS
Create Table #no (
i int
)
Insert into #no (i) Select top 10 ID from table_1
Select * from #no
Drop table #no
--
This is a problem for me because a lot of my reports collect data from
several tables and insert them into temp tables. But effectively they will
show up with no dependencies and therefor be subject for deletion.
Remodelling all stored procedures to use table variables is no option.
This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error in
the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.> This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error
> in
> the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
One of the reasons dependency information may be missing is due to deferred
name resolution. Since the temp table does not exist when the proc is
created, no dependency info is recorded for any objects referenced by the
INSERT statement.
> Remodelling all stored procedures to use table variables is no option.
If you create the temp table before creating the proc, you should get the
dependency info.
> This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error
> in
> the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
Although one could make the argument that this is a bug, it's unclear to me
what the correct behavior should be when a statement contains a mix of
existing and non-existing objects. You might consider submitting product
enhancement feedback via Connect (http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer) to
suggest that known dependency information be recorded when a statement
contains a mix of existing and non-existing objects. Perhaps this will make
it into the next SQL Server version or future service pack.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Karsten Feddersen, Denmark" <Karsten Feddersen,
Denmark@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48D61C0B-5635-4137-A3E8-C7A7CC16796F@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I have a problem. I have a database with way to many stored procedures. In
> order delete some i made a script that finds stored procedures and their
> dependencies. Those without any dependencies should be deleted because
> they
> typically have been emptied for logic.
> But unfortunately if there is a 'INSERT INTO #TEMP (FIELD1) SELECT Field1
> FROM TABLE_1' there is no dependency for table TABLE_1. If the INSERT INTO
> uses a normal table or a table variable there is a dependency.
> My example below turns out to have no dependecies as all even though the
> table exists up front and the procedure has been executed succesfully.
> Example: --
> CREATE PROCEDURE Test3 AS
> Create Table #no (
> i int
> )
> Insert into #no (i) Select top 10 ID from table_1
> Select * from #no
> Drop table #no
> --
> This is a problem for me because a lot of my reports collect data from
> several tables and insert them into temp tables. But effectively they will
> show up with no dependencies and therefor be subject for deletion.
> Remodelling all stored procedures to use table variables is no option.
> This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error
> in
> the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
No dependencies when inserting data into a #temp table
Hi
I have a problem. I have a database with way to many stored procedures. In
order delete some i made a script that finds stored procedures and their
dependencies. Those without any dependencies should be deleted because they
typically have been emptied for logic.
But unfortunately if there is a 'INSERT INTO #TEMP (FIELD1) SELECT Field1
FROM TABLE_1' there is no dependency for table TABLE_1. If the INSERT INTO
uses a normal table or a table variable there is a dependency.
My example below turns out to have no dependecies as all even though the
table exists up front and the procedure has been executed succesfully.
Example: --
CREATE PROCEDURE Test3 AS
Create Table #no (
i int
)
Insert into #no (i)Select top 10 ID from table_1
Select * from #no
Drop table #no
This is a problem for me because a lot of my reports collect data from
several tables and insert them into temp tables. But effectively they will
show up with no dependencies and therefor be subject for deletion.
Remodelling all stored procedures to use table variables is no option.
This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error in
the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
> This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error
> in
> the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
One of the reasons dependency information may be missing is due to deferred
name resolution. Since the temp table does not exist when the proc is
created, no dependency info is recorded for any objects referenced by the
INSERT statement.
> Remodelling all stored procedures to use table variables is no option.
If you create the temp table before creating the proc, you should get the
dependency info.
> This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error
> in
> the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
Although one could make the argument that this is a bug, it's unclear to me
what the correct behavior should be when a statement contains a mix of
existing and non-existing objects. You might consider submitting product
enhancement feedback via Connect (http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer) to
suggest that known dependency information be recorded when a statement
contains a mix of existing and non-existing objects. Perhaps this will make
it into the next SQL Server version or future service pack.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Karsten Feddersen, Denmark" <Karsten Feddersen,
Denmark@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48D61C0B-5635-4137-A3E8-C7A7CC16796F@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I have a problem. I have a database with way to many stored procedures. In
> order delete some i made a script that finds stored procedures and their
> dependencies. Those without any dependencies should be deleted because
> they
> typically have been emptied for logic.
> But unfortunately if there is a 'INSERT INTO #TEMP (FIELD1) SELECT Field1
> FROM TABLE_1' there is no dependency for table TABLE_1. If the INSERT INTO
> uses a normal table or a table variable there is a dependency.
> My example below turns out to have no dependecies as all even though the
> table exists up front and the procedure has been executed succesfully.
> Example: --
> CREATE PROCEDURE Test3 AS
> Create Table #no (
> i int
> )
> Insert into #no (i) Select top 10 ID from table_1
> Select * from #no
> Drop table #no
> --
> This is a problem for me because a lot of my reports collect data from
> several tables and insert them into temp tables. But effectively they will
> show up with no dependencies and therefor be subject for deletion.
> Remodelling all stored procedures to use table variables is no option.
> This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error
> in
> the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
I have a problem. I have a database with way to many stored procedures. In
order delete some i made a script that finds stored procedures and their
dependencies. Those without any dependencies should be deleted because they
typically have been emptied for logic.
But unfortunately if there is a 'INSERT INTO #TEMP (FIELD1) SELECT Field1
FROM TABLE_1' there is no dependency for table TABLE_1. If the INSERT INTO
uses a normal table or a table variable there is a dependency.
My example below turns out to have no dependecies as all even though the
table exists up front and the procedure has been executed succesfully.
Example: --
CREATE PROCEDURE Test3 AS
Create Table #no (
i int
)
Insert into #no (i)Select top 10 ID from table_1
Select * from #no
Drop table #no
This is a problem for me because a lot of my reports collect data from
several tables and insert them into temp tables. But effectively they will
show up with no dependencies and therefor be subject for deletion.
Remodelling all stored procedures to use table variables is no option.
This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error in
the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
> This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error
> in
> the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
One of the reasons dependency information may be missing is due to deferred
name resolution. Since the temp table does not exist when the proc is
created, no dependency info is recorded for any objects referenced by the
INSERT statement.
> Remodelling all stored procedures to use table variables is no option.
If you create the temp table before creating the proc, you should get the
dependency info.
> This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error
> in
> the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
Although one could make the argument that this is a bug, it's unclear to me
what the correct behavior should be when a statement contains a mix of
existing and non-existing objects. You might consider submitting product
enhancement feedback via Connect (http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer) to
suggest that known dependency information be recorded when a statement
contains a mix of existing and non-existing objects. Perhaps this will make
it into the next SQL Server version or future service pack.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Karsten Feddersen, Denmark" <Karsten Feddersen,
Denmark@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48D61C0B-5635-4137-A3E8-C7A7CC16796F@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I have a problem. I have a database with way to many stored procedures. In
> order delete some i made a script that finds stored procedures and their
> dependencies. Those without any dependencies should be deleted because
> they
> typically have been emptied for logic.
> But unfortunately if there is a 'INSERT INTO #TEMP (FIELD1) SELECT Field1
> FROM TABLE_1' there is no dependency for table TABLE_1. If the INSERT INTO
> uses a normal table or a table variable there is a dependency.
> My example below turns out to have no dependecies as all even though the
> table exists up front and the procedure has been executed succesfully.
> Example: --
> CREATE PROCEDURE Test3 AS
> Create Table #no (
> i int
> )
> Insert into #no (i) Select top 10 ID from table_1
> Select * from #no
> Drop table #no
> --
> This is a problem for me because a lot of my reports collect data from
> several tables and insert them into temp tables. But effectively they will
> show up with no dependencies and therefor be subject for deletion.
> Remodelling all stored procedures to use table variables is no option.
> This occurs in both SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 so I wonder if this is an error
> in
> the product or whether there is a good reason for doing as it does.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Newbie: I don't understand user permissions for table access
I have a SQL Server database that has database userid/password protection.
When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table, but
when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO options
set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of the
permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get access
to the tables.
TIA,
Larry Woods
wrong
table permissions are important. They are required in order to
access/update/delete data.
HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
NT Authentication?
SQL Server Authentication?
If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa? If so, that is the
"GOD" account. You have full permissions to do anything and everything.
If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT account have? Is it
assigned server or database roles that allow the activities that you are
performing?
Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to the PUBLIC role?
Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights to the public
role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the rights assigned to the
public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad security model.
SQL Server has a strong security model and it works well when it is setup by
someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong hands...
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I have a SQL Server database that has database userid/password protection.
> When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table, but
> when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO options
> set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of the
> permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get
access
> to the tables.
> TIA,
> Larry Woods
>
|||My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM on the workstation.
The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the userid has "public"
and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete access to all
tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the permissions dialogs?
My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
Thanks, again.
Larry Woods
And,
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> wrong
> table permissions are important. They are required in order to
> access/update/delete data.
> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
> NT Authentication?
> SQL Server Authentication?
> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa? If so, that is the
> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do anything and everything.
> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT account have? Is it
> assigned server or database roles that allow the activities that you are
> performing?
> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to the PUBLIC role?
> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights to the public
> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the rights assigned to
the
> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad security model.
> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works well when it is setup
by[vbcol=seagreen]
> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong hands...
> --
> Keith
>
> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
protection.[vbcol=seagreen]
but[vbcol=seagreen]
options
> access
>
|||Correct. The dbo_owner role allows you complete access to everything.
From Books Online
Roles
Fixed database role Description
db_owner Has all permissions in the database.
You can get to this page yourself. right-click on the Books Online icon in
your task bar. Select Jump to URL
enter the following:
mk:@.MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\Microsoft%20SQL%2 0Server\80\Tools\Books\arc
hitec.chm::/8_ar_da_3xns.htm
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:uNv%23vFLdEHA.3380@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM on the
workstation.[vbcol=seagreen]
> The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the userid has "public"
> and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete access to all
> tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the permissions dialogs?
> My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
> Thanks, again.
> Larry Woods
> And,
> "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> the
setup[vbcol=seagreen]
> by
> protection.
> but
> options
the
>
|||Hi Larry,
ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
database. If there are other databases you can attack to
then you may have different access rights.
I would sugest you have a look at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
groups for a bit of background
Peter
MCDBA
>--Original Message--
>My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM
on the workstation.
>The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the
userid has "public"
>and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete
access to all
>tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the
permissions dialogs?
>My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
>Thanks, again.
>Larry Woods
>And,
>"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
order to[vbcol=seagreen]
If so, that is the[vbcol=seagreen]
anything and everything.[vbcol=seagreen]
account have? Is it[vbcol=seagreen]
activities that you are[vbcol=seagreen]
the PUBLIC role?[vbcol=seagreen]
to the public[vbcol=seagreen]
rights assigned to[vbcol=seagreen]
>the
security model.[vbcol=seagreen]
well when it is setup[vbcol=seagreen]
>by
hands...[vbcol=seagreen]
userid/password[vbcol=seagreen]
>protection.
add/delete/modify any table,[vbcol=seagreen]
>but
there are NO[vbcol=seagreen]
>options
the purpose of the[vbcol=seagreen]
in order to get
>
>.
>
|||Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now, tackle the other
email that I sent! ;-)
Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but NOT through a Access
project? In the Access project I can read/select any table in the database,
but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
??
Thanks, again.
Larry Woods
"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Larry,
> ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
> database. If there are other databases you can attack to
> then you may have different access rights.
> I would sugest you have a look at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
> url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
> groups for a bit of background
> Peter
> MCDBA
>
> on the workstation.
> userid has "public"
> access to all
> permissions dialogs?
> message
> order to
> If so, that is the
> anything and everything.
> account have? Is it
> activities that you are
> the PUBLIC role?
> to the public
> rights assigned to
> security model.
> well when it is setup
> hands...
> userid/password
> add/delete/modify any table,
> there are NO
> the purpose of the
> in order to get
|||Probably because you do not have permissions in Access to
chenge the database, however in SQL Server you have
db_owner permission that does allow you to.
Peter
>--Original Message--
>Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now,
tackle the other
>email that I sent! ;-)
>Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but
NOT through a Access
>project? In the Access project I can read/select any
table in the database,
>but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
>??
>Thanks, again.
>Larry Woods
>"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
complete[vbcol=seagreen]
permissions.[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
rights[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
tables[vbcol=seagreen]
understand[vbcol=seagreen]
set
>
>.
>
|||Thanks, Peter.
That may be, but I can't find any place in Access where you can set
permissions.
Any suggestions?
Larry Woods
"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5dfb01c474b8$6cc4d560$a501280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Probably because you do not have permissions in Access to
> chenge the database, however in SQL Server you have
> db_owner permission that does allow you to.
> Peter
>
> tackle the other
> NOT through a Access
> table in the database,
> wrote in message
> complete
> permissions.
> in
> rights
> message
> tables
> understand
> set
|||How do you link your tables? Try using a specific user that has the
appropriate permissions within SQL Server.
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:elv2x3LdEHA.3792@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, Peter.
> That may be, but I can't find any place in Access where you can set
> permissions.
> Any suggestions?
> Larry Woods
> "Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5dfb01c474b8$6cc4d560$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
>
When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table, but
when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO options
set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of the
permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get access
to the tables.
TIA,
Larry Woods
wrong
table permissions are important. They are required in order to
access/update/delete data.
HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
NT Authentication?
SQL Server Authentication?
If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa? If so, that is the
"GOD" account. You have full permissions to do anything and everything.
If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT account have? Is it
assigned server or database roles that allow the activities that you are
performing?
Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to the PUBLIC role?
Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights to the public
role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the rights assigned to the
public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad security model.
SQL Server has a strong security model and it works well when it is setup by
someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong hands...
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I have a SQL Server database that has database userid/password protection.
> When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table, but
> when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO options
> set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of the
> permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get
access
> to the tables.
> TIA,
> Larry Woods
>
|||My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM on the workstation.
The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the userid has "public"
and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete access to all
tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the permissions dialogs?
My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
Thanks, again.
Larry Woods
And,
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> wrong
> table permissions are important. They are required in order to
> access/update/delete data.
> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
> NT Authentication?
> SQL Server Authentication?
> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa? If so, that is the
> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do anything and everything.
> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT account have? Is it
> assigned server or database roles that allow the activities that you are
> performing?
> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to the PUBLIC role?
> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights to the public
> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the rights assigned to
the
> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad security model.
> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works well when it is setup
by[vbcol=seagreen]
> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong hands...
> --
> Keith
>
> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
protection.[vbcol=seagreen]
but[vbcol=seagreen]
options
> access
>
|||Correct. The dbo_owner role allows you complete access to everything.
From Books Online
Roles
Fixed database role Description
db_owner Has all permissions in the database.
You can get to this page yourself. right-click on the Books Online icon in
your task bar. Select Jump to URL
enter the following:
mk:@.MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\Microsoft%20SQL%2 0Server\80\Tools\Books\arc
hitec.chm::/8_ar_da_3xns.htm
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:uNv%23vFLdEHA.3380@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM on the
workstation.[vbcol=seagreen]
> The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the userid has "public"
> and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete access to all
> tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the permissions dialogs?
> My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
> Thanks, again.
> Larry Woods
> And,
> "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> the
setup[vbcol=seagreen]
> by
> protection.
> but
> options
the
>
|||Hi Larry,
ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
database. If there are other databases you can attack to
then you may have different access rights.
I would sugest you have a look at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
groups for a bit of background
Peter
MCDBA
>--Original Message--
>My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM
on the workstation.
>The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the
userid has "public"
>and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete
access to all
>tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the
permissions dialogs?
>My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
>Thanks, again.
>Larry Woods
>And,
>"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
order to[vbcol=seagreen]
If so, that is the[vbcol=seagreen]
anything and everything.[vbcol=seagreen]
account have? Is it[vbcol=seagreen]
activities that you are[vbcol=seagreen]
the PUBLIC role?[vbcol=seagreen]
to the public[vbcol=seagreen]
rights assigned to[vbcol=seagreen]
>the
security model.[vbcol=seagreen]
well when it is setup[vbcol=seagreen]
>by
hands...[vbcol=seagreen]
userid/password[vbcol=seagreen]
>protection.
add/delete/modify any table,[vbcol=seagreen]
>but
there are NO[vbcol=seagreen]
>options
the purpose of the[vbcol=seagreen]
in order to get
>
>.
>
|||Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now, tackle the other
email that I sent! ;-)
Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but NOT through a Access
project? In the Access project I can read/select any table in the database,
but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
??
Thanks, again.
Larry Woods
"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Larry,
> ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
> database. If there are other databases you can attack to
> then you may have different access rights.
> I would sugest you have a look at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
> url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
> groups for a bit of background
> Peter
> MCDBA
>
> on the workstation.
> userid has "public"
> access to all
> permissions dialogs?
> message
> order to
> If so, that is the
> anything and everything.
> account have? Is it
> activities that you are
> the PUBLIC role?
> to the public
> rights assigned to
> security model.
> well when it is setup
> hands...
> userid/password
> add/delete/modify any table,
> there are NO
> the purpose of the
> in order to get
|||Probably because you do not have permissions in Access to
chenge the database, however in SQL Server you have
db_owner permission that does allow you to.
Peter
>--Original Message--
>Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now,
tackle the other
>email that I sent! ;-)
>Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but
NOT through a Access
>project? In the Access project I can read/select any
table in the database,
>but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
>??
>Thanks, again.
>Larry Woods
>"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
complete[vbcol=seagreen]
permissions.[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
rights[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
tables[vbcol=seagreen]
understand[vbcol=seagreen]
set
>
>.
>
|||Thanks, Peter.
That may be, but I can't find any place in Access where you can set
permissions.
Any suggestions?
Larry Woods
"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5dfb01c474b8$6cc4d560$a501280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Probably because you do not have permissions in Access to
> chenge the database, however in SQL Server you have
> db_owner permission that does allow you to.
> Peter
>
> tackle the other
> NOT through a Access
> table in the database,
> wrote in message
> complete
> permissions.
> in
> rights
> message
> tables
> understand
> set
|||How do you link your tables? Try using a specific user that has the
appropriate permissions within SQL Server.
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:elv2x3LdEHA.3792@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, Peter.
> That may be, but I can't find any place in Access where you can set
> permissions.
> Any suggestions?
> Larry Woods
> "Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5dfb01c474b8$6cc4d560$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
>
Newbie: I don't understand user permissions for table access
I have a SQL Server database that has database userid/password protection.
When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table, but
when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO options
set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of the
permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get access
to the tables.
TIA,
Larry Woodswrong
table permissions are important. They are required in order to
access/update/delete data.
HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
NT Authentication?
SQL Server Authentication?
If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa? If so, that is the
"GOD" account. You have full permissions to do anything and everything.
If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT account have? Is it
assigned server or database roles that allow the activities that you are
performing?
Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to the PUBLIC role?
Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights to the public
role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the rights assigned to the
public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad security model.
SQL Server has a strong security model and it works well when it is setup by
someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong hands...
--
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I have a SQL Server database that has database userid/password protection.
> When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table, but
> when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO options
> set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of the
> permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get
access
> to the tables.
> TIA,
> Larry Woods
>|||My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM on the workstation.
The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the userid has "public"
and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete access to all
tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the permissions dialogs?
My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
Thanks, again.
Larry Woods
And,
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> wrong
> table permissions are important. They are required in order to
> access/update/delete data.
> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
> NT Authentication?
> SQL Server Authentication?
> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa? If so, that is the
> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do anything and everything.
> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT account have? Is it
> assigned server or database roles that allow the activities that you are
> performing?
> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to the PUBLIC role?
> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights to the public
> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the rights assigned to
the
> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad security model.
> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works well when it is setup
by
> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong hands...
> --
> Keith
>
> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > I have a SQL Server database that has database userid/password
protection.
> > When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table,
but
> > when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO
options
> > set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of the
> > permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get
> access
> > to the tables.
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > Larry Woods
> >
> >
>|||Correct. The dbo_owner role allows you complete access to everything.
From Books Online
Roles
Fixed database role Description
db_owner Has all permissions in the database.
You can get to this page yourself. right-click on the Books Online icon in
your task bar. Select Jump to URL
enter the following:
mk:@.MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\Microsoft%20SQL%20Server\80\Tools\Books\arc
hitec.chm::/8_ar_da_3xns.htm
--
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:uNv%23vFLdEHA.3380@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM on the
workstation.
> The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the userid has "public"
> and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete access to all
> tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the permissions dialogs?
> My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
> Thanks, again.
> Larry Woods
> And,
> "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > wrong
> > table permissions are important. They are required in order to
> > access/update/delete data.
> >
> > HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
> > NT Authentication?
> > SQL Server Authentication?
> >
> > If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa? If so, that is the
> > "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do anything and everything.
> >
> > If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT account have? Is it
> > assigned server or database roles that allow the activities that you are
> > performing?
> >
> > Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to the PUBLIC role?
> > Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights to the public
> > role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the rights assigned to
> the
> > public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad security model.
> >
> > SQL Server has a strong security model and it works well when it is
setup
> by
> > someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong hands...
> >
> > --
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
> > news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > I have a SQL Server database that has database userid/password
> protection.
> > > When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table,
> but
> > > when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO
> options
> > > set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of
the
> > > permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get
> > access
> > > to the tables.
> > >
> > > TIA,
> > >
> > > Larry Woods
> > >
> > >
> >
>|||Hi Larry,
ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
database. If there are other databases you can attack to
then you may have different access rights.
I would sugest you have a look at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
groups for a bit of background
Peter
MCDBA
>--Original Message--
>My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM
on the workstation.
>The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the
userid has "public"
>and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete
access to all
>tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the
permissions dialogs?
>My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
>Thanks, again.
>Larry Woods
>And,
>"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in
message
>news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> wrong
>> table permissions are important. They are required in
order to
>> access/update/delete data.
>> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
>> NT Authentication?
>> SQL Server Authentication?
>> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa?
If so, that is the
>> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do
anything and everything.
>> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT
account have? Is it
>> assigned server or database roles that allow the
activities that you are
>> performing?
>> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to
the PUBLIC role?
>> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights
to the public
>> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the
rights assigned to
>the
>> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad
security model.
>> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works
well when it is setup
>by
>> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong
hands...
>> --
>> Keith
>>
>> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
>> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> > I have a SQL Server database that has database
userid/password
>protection.
>> > When I open the database through EM I can
add/delete/modify any table,
>but
>> > when I look at the permissions for any of the tables
there are NO
>options
>> > set for any user of the database! I don't understand
the purpose of the
>> > permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set
in order to get
>> access
>> > to the tables.
>> >
>> > TIA,
>> >
>> > Larry Woods
>> >
>> >
>
>.
>|||Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now, tackle the other
email that I sent! ;-)
Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but NOT through a Access
project? In the Access project I can read/select any table in the database,
but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
''
Thanks, again.
Larry Woods
"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi Larry,
> ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
> database. If there are other databases you can attack to
> then you may have different access rights.
> I would sugest you have a look at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
> url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
> groups for a bit of background
> Peter
> MCDBA
>
> >--Original Message--
> >My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM
> on the workstation.
> >The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the
> userid has "public"
> >and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete
> access to all
> >tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the
> permissions dialogs?
> >
> >My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
> >
> >Thanks, again.
> >
> >Larry Woods
> >
> >And,
> >"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in
> message
> >news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> wrong
> >> table permissions are important. They are required in
> order to
> >> access/update/delete data.
> >>
> >> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
> >> NT Authentication?
> >> SQL Server Authentication?
> >>
> >> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa?
> If so, that is the
> >> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do
> anything and everything.
> >>
> >> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT
> account have? Is it
> >> assigned server or database roles that allow the
> activities that you are
> >> performing?
> >>
> >> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to
> the PUBLIC role?
> >> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights
> to the public
> >> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the
> rights assigned to
> >the
> >> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad
> security model.
> >>
> >> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works
> well when it is setup
> >by
> >> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong
> hands...
> >>
> >> --
> >> Keith
> >>
> >>
> >> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
> >> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> > I have a SQL Server database that has database
> userid/password
> >protection.
> >> > When I open the database through EM I can
> add/delete/modify any table,
> >but
> >> > when I look at the permissions for any of the tables
> there are NO
> >options
> >> > set for any user of the database! I don't understand
> the purpose of the
> >> > permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set
> in order to get
> >> access
> >> > to the tables.
> >> >
> >> > TIA,
> >> >
> >> > Larry Woods
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||Probably because you do not have permissions in Access to
chenge the database, however in SQL Server you have
db_owner permission that does allow you to.
Peter
>--Original Message--
>Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now,
tackle the other
>email that I sent! ;-)
>Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but
NOT through a Access
>project? In the Access project I can read/select any
table in the database,
>but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
>''
>Thanks, again.
>Larry Woods
>"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message
>news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Hi Larry,
>> ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
>> database. If there are other databases you can attack to
>> then you may have different access rights.
>> I would sugest you have a look at
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
>> url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
>> groups for a bit of background
>> Peter
>> MCDBA
>>
>> >--Original Message--
>> >My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM
>> on the workstation.
>> >The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the
>> userid has "public"
>> >and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have
complete
>> access to all
>> >tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the
>> permissions dialogs?
>> >
>> >My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC"
permissions.
>> >
>> >Thanks, again.
>> >
>> >Larry Woods
>> >
>> >And,
>> >"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in
>> message
>> >news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> >> wrong
>> >> table permissions are important. They are required
in
>> order to
>> >> access/update/delete data.
>> >>
>> >> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
>> >> NT Authentication?
>> >> SQL Server Authentication?
>> >>
>> >> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa?
>> If so, that is the
>> >> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do
>> anything and everything.
>> >>
>> >> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT
>> account have? Is it
>> >> assigned server or database roles that allow the
>> activities that you are
>> >> performing?
>> >>
>> >> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to
>> the PUBLIC role?
>> >> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all
rights
>> to the public
>> >> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the
>> rights assigned to
>> >the
>> >> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad
>> security model.
>> >>
>> >> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works
>> well when it is setup
>> >by
>> >> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong
>> hands...
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Keith
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in
message
>> >> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> > I have a SQL Server database that has database
>> userid/password
>> >protection.
>> >> > When I open the database through EM I can
>> add/delete/modify any table,
>> >but
>> >> > when I look at the permissions for any of the
tables
>> there are NO
>> >options
>> >> > set for any user of the database! I don't
understand
>> the purpose of the
>> >> > permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be
set
>> in order to get
>> >> access
>> >> > to the tables.
>> >> >
>> >> > TIA,
>> >> >
>> >> > Larry Woods
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>
>.
>|||Thanks, Peter.
That may be, but I can't find any place in Access where you can set
permissions.
Any suggestions?
Larry Woods
"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5dfb01c474b8$6cc4d560$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Probably because you do not have permissions in Access to
> chenge the database, however in SQL Server you have
> db_owner permission that does allow you to.
> Peter
>
> >--Original Message--
> >Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now,
> tackle the other
> >email that I sent! ;-)
> >
> >Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but
> NOT through a Access
> >project? In the Access project I can read/select any
> table in the database,
> >but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
> >
> >''
> >
> >Thanks, again.
> >
> >Larry Woods
> >
> >"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote in message
> >news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> Hi Larry,
> >>
> >> ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
> >> database. If there are other databases you can attack to
> >> then you may have different access rights.
> >>
> >> I would sugest you have a look at
> >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
> >> url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
> >> groups for a bit of background
> >>
> >> Peter
> >> MCDBA
> >>
> >>
> >> >--Original Message--
> >> >My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM
> >> on the workstation.
> >> >The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the
> >> userid has "public"
> >> >and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have
> complete
> >> access to all
> >> >tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the
> >> permissions dialogs?
> >> >
> >> >My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC"
> permissions.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks, again.
> >> >
> >> >Larry Woods
> >> >
> >> >And,
> >> >"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in
> >> message
> >> >news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> >> wrong
> >> >> table permissions are important. They are required
> in
> >> order to
> >> >> access/update/delete data.
> >> >>
> >> >> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
> >> >> NT Authentication?
> >> >> SQL Server Authentication?
> >> >>
> >> >> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa?
> >> If so, that is the
> >> >> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do
> >> anything and everything.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT
> >> account have? Is it
> >> >> assigned server or database roles that allow the
> >> activities that you are
> >> >> performing?
> >> >>
> >> >> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to
> >> the PUBLIC role?
> >> >> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all
> rights
> >> to the public
> >> >> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the
> >> rights assigned to
> >> >the
> >> >> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad
> >> security model.
> >> >>
> >> >> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works
> >> well when it is setup
> >> >by
> >> >> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong
> >> hands...
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Keith
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in
> message
> >> >> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> >> > I have a SQL Server database that has database
> >> userid/password
> >> >protection.
> >> >> > When I open the database through EM I can
> >> add/delete/modify any table,
> >> >but
> >> >> > when I look at the permissions for any of the
> tables
> >> there are NO
> >> >options
> >> >> > set for any user of the database! I don't
> understand
> >> the purpose of the
> >> >> > permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be
> set
> >> in order to get
> >> >> access
> >> >> > to the tables.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > TIA,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Larry Woods
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >.
> >> >
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||How do you link your tables? Try using a specific user that has the
appropriate permissions within SQL Server.
--
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:elv2x3LdEHA.3792@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, Peter.
> That may be, but I can't find any place in Access where you can set
> permissions.
> Any suggestions?
> Larry Woods
> "Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5dfb01c474b8$6cc4d560$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> > Probably because you do not have permissions in Access to
> > chenge the database, however in SQL Server you have
> > db_owner permission that does allow you to.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> > >--Original Message--
> > >Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now,
> > tackle the other
> > >email that I sent! ;-)
> > >
> > >Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but
> > NOT through a Access
> > >project? In the Access project I can read/select any
> > table in the database,
> > >but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
> > >
> > >''
> > >
> > >Thanks, again.
> > >
> > >Larry Woods
> > >
> > >"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> > wrote in message
> > >news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> > >> Hi Larry,
> > >>
> > >> ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
> > >> database. If there are other databases you can attack to
> > >> then you may have different access rights.
> > >>
> > >> I would sugest you have a look at
> > >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
> > >> url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
> > >> groups for a bit of background
> > >>
> > >> Peter
> > >> MCDBA
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >--Original Message--
> > >> >My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM
> > >> on the workstation.
> > >> >The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the
> > >> userid has "public"
> > >> >and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have
> > complete
> > >> access to all
> > >> >tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the
> > >> permissions dialogs?
> > >> >
> > >> >My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC"
> > permissions.
> > >> >
> > >> >Thanks, again.
> > >> >
> > >> >Larry Woods
> > >> >
> > >> >And,
> > >> >"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in
> > >> message
> > >> >news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > >> >> wrong
> > >> >> table permissions are important. They are required
> > in
> > >> order to
> > >> >> access/update/delete data.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
> > >> >> NT Authentication?
> > >> >> SQL Server Authentication?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa?
> > >> If so, that is the
> > >> >> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do
> > >> anything and everything.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT
> > >> account have? Is it
> > >> >> assigned server or database roles that allow the
> > >> activities that you are
> > >> >> performing?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to
> > >> the PUBLIC role?
> > >> >> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all
> > rights
> > >> to the public
> > >> >> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the
> > >> rights assigned to
> > >> >the
> > >> >> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad
> > >> security model.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works
> > >> well when it is setup
> > >> >by
> > >> >> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong
> > >> hands...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Keith
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in
> > message
> > >> >> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > >> >> > I have a SQL Server database that has database
> > >> userid/password
> > >> >protection.
> > >> >> > When I open the database through EM I can
> > >> add/delete/modify any table,
> > >> >but
> > >> >> > when I look at the permissions for any of the
> > tables
> > >> there are NO
> > >> >options
> > >> >> > set for any user of the database! I don't
> > understand
> > >> the purpose of the
> > >> >> > permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be
> > set
> > >> in order to get
> > >> >> access
> > >> >> > to the tables.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > TIA,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Larry Woods
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >.
> > >> >
> > >
> > >
> > >.
> > >
>
When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table, but
when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO options
set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of the
permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get access
to the tables.
TIA,
Larry Woodswrong
table permissions are important. They are required in order to
access/update/delete data.
HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
NT Authentication?
SQL Server Authentication?
If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa? If so, that is the
"GOD" account. You have full permissions to do anything and everything.
If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT account have? Is it
assigned server or database roles that allow the activities that you are
performing?
Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to the PUBLIC role?
Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights to the public
role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the rights assigned to the
public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad security model.
SQL Server has a strong security model and it works well when it is setup by
someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong hands...
--
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I have a SQL Server database that has database userid/password protection.
> When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table, but
> when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO options
> set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of the
> permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get
access
> to the tables.
> TIA,
> Larry Woods
>|||My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM on the workstation.
The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the userid has "public"
and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete access to all
tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the permissions dialogs?
My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
Thanks, again.
Larry Woods
And,
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> wrong
> table permissions are important. They are required in order to
> access/update/delete data.
> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
> NT Authentication?
> SQL Server Authentication?
> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa? If so, that is the
> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do anything and everything.
> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT account have? Is it
> assigned server or database roles that allow the activities that you are
> performing?
> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to the PUBLIC role?
> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights to the public
> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the rights assigned to
the
> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad security model.
> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works well when it is setup
by
> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong hands...
> --
> Keith
>
> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > I have a SQL Server database that has database userid/password
protection.
> > When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table,
but
> > when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO
options
> > set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of the
> > permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get
> access
> > to the tables.
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > Larry Woods
> >
> >
>|||Correct. The dbo_owner role allows you complete access to everything.
From Books Online
Roles
Fixed database role Description
db_owner Has all permissions in the database.
You can get to this page yourself. right-click on the Books Online icon in
your task bar. Select Jump to URL
enter the following:
mk:@.MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\Microsoft%20SQL%20Server\80\Tools\Books\arc
hitec.chm::/8_ar_da_3xns.htm
--
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:uNv%23vFLdEHA.3380@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM on the
workstation.
> The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the userid has "public"
> and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete access to all
> tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the permissions dialogs?
> My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
> Thanks, again.
> Larry Woods
> And,
> "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > wrong
> > table permissions are important. They are required in order to
> > access/update/delete data.
> >
> > HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
> > NT Authentication?
> > SQL Server Authentication?
> >
> > If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa? If so, that is the
> > "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do anything and everything.
> >
> > If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT account have? Is it
> > assigned server or database roles that allow the activities that you are
> > performing?
> >
> > Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to the PUBLIC role?
> > Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights to the public
> > role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the rights assigned to
> the
> > public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad security model.
> >
> > SQL Server has a strong security model and it works well when it is
setup
> by
> > someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong hands...
> >
> > --
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
> > news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > I have a SQL Server database that has database userid/password
> protection.
> > > When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table,
> but
> > > when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO
> options
> > > set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of
the
> > > permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get
> > access
> > > to the tables.
> > >
> > > TIA,
> > >
> > > Larry Woods
> > >
> > >
> >
>|||Hi Larry,
ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
database. If there are other databases you can attack to
then you may have different access rights.
I would sugest you have a look at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
groups for a bit of background
Peter
MCDBA
>--Original Message--
>My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM
on the workstation.
>The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the
userid has "public"
>and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete
access to all
>tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the
permissions dialogs?
>My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
>Thanks, again.
>Larry Woods
>And,
>"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in
message
>news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> wrong
>> table permissions are important. They are required in
order to
>> access/update/delete data.
>> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
>> NT Authentication?
>> SQL Server Authentication?
>> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa?
If so, that is the
>> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do
anything and everything.
>> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT
account have? Is it
>> assigned server or database roles that allow the
activities that you are
>> performing?
>> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to
the PUBLIC role?
>> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights
to the public
>> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the
rights assigned to
>the
>> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad
security model.
>> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works
well when it is setup
>by
>> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong
hands...
>> --
>> Keith
>>
>> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
>> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> > I have a SQL Server database that has database
userid/password
>protection.
>> > When I open the database through EM I can
add/delete/modify any table,
>but
>> > when I look at the permissions for any of the tables
there are NO
>options
>> > set for any user of the database! I don't understand
the purpose of the
>> > permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set
in order to get
>> access
>> > to the tables.
>> >
>> > TIA,
>> >
>> > Larry Woods
>> >
>> >
>
>.
>|||Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now, tackle the other
email that I sent! ;-)
Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but NOT through a Access
project? In the Access project I can read/select any table in the database,
but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
''
Thanks, again.
Larry Woods
"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi Larry,
> ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
> database. If there are other databases you can attack to
> then you may have different access rights.
> I would sugest you have a look at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
> url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
> groups for a bit of background
> Peter
> MCDBA
>
> >--Original Message--
> >My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM
> on the workstation.
> >The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the
> userid has "public"
> >and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete
> access to all
> >tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the
> permissions dialogs?
> >
> >My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
> >
> >Thanks, again.
> >
> >Larry Woods
> >
> >And,
> >"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in
> message
> >news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> wrong
> >> table permissions are important. They are required in
> order to
> >> access/update/delete data.
> >>
> >> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
> >> NT Authentication?
> >> SQL Server Authentication?
> >>
> >> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa?
> If so, that is the
> >> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do
> anything and everything.
> >>
> >> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT
> account have? Is it
> >> assigned server or database roles that allow the
> activities that you are
> >> performing?
> >>
> >> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to
> the PUBLIC role?
> >> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights
> to the public
> >> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the
> rights assigned to
> >the
> >> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad
> security model.
> >>
> >> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works
> well when it is setup
> >by
> >> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong
> hands...
> >>
> >> --
> >> Keith
> >>
> >>
> >> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
> >> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> > I have a SQL Server database that has database
> userid/password
> >protection.
> >> > When I open the database through EM I can
> add/delete/modify any table,
> >but
> >> > when I look at the permissions for any of the tables
> there are NO
> >options
> >> > set for any user of the database! I don't understand
> the purpose of the
> >> > permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set
> in order to get
> >> access
> >> > to the tables.
> >> >
> >> > TIA,
> >> >
> >> > Larry Woods
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||Probably because you do not have permissions in Access to
chenge the database, however in SQL Server you have
db_owner permission that does allow you to.
Peter
>--Original Message--
>Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now,
tackle the other
>email that I sent! ;-)
>Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but
NOT through a Access
>project? In the Access project I can read/select any
table in the database,
>but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
>''
>Thanks, again.
>Larry Woods
>"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message
>news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Hi Larry,
>> ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
>> database. If there are other databases you can attack to
>> then you may have different access rights.
>> I would sugest you have a look at
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
>> url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
>> groups for a bit of background
>> Peter
>> MCDBA
>>
>> >--Original Message--
>> >My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM
>> on the workstation.
>> >The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the
>> userid has "public"
>> >and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have
complete
>> access to all
>> >tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the
>> permissions dialogs?
>> >
>> >My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC"
permissions.
>> >
>> >Thanks, again.
>> >
>> >Larry Woods
>> >
>> >And,
>> >"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in
>> message
>> >news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> >> wrong
>> >> table permissions are important. They are required
in
>> order to
>> >> access/update/delete data.
>> >>
>> >> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
>> >> NT Authentication?
>> >> SQL Server Authentication?
>> >>
>> >> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa?
>> If so, that is the
>> >> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do
>> anything and everything.
>> >>
>> >> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT
>> account have? Is it
>> >> assigned server or database roles that allow the
>> activities that you are
>> >> performing?
>> >>
>> >> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to
>> the PUBLIC role?
>> >> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all
rights
>> to the public
>> >> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the
>> rights assigned to
>> >the
>> >> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad
>> security model.
>> >>
>> >> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works
>> well when it is setup
>> >by
>> >> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong
>> hands...
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Keith
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in
message
>> >> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> > I have a SQL Server database that has database
>> userid/password
>> >protection.
>> >> > When I open the database through EM I can
>> add/delete/modify any table,
>> >but
>> >> > when I look at the permissions for any of the
tables
>> there are NO
>> >options
>> >> > set for any user of the database! I don't
understand
>> the purpose of the
>> >> > permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be
set
>> in order to get
>> >> access
>> >> > to the tables.
>> >> >
>> >> > TIA,
>> >> >
>> >> > Larry Woods
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>
>.
>|||Thanks, Peter.
That may be, but I can't find any place in Access where you can set
permissions.
Any suggestions?
Larry Woods
"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5dfb01c474b8$6cc4d560$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Probably because you do not have permissions in Access to
> chenge the database, however in SQL Server you have
> db_owner permission that does allow you to.
> Peter
>
> >--Original Message--
> >Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now,
> tackle the other
> >email that I sent! ;-)
> >
> >Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but
> NOT through a Access
> >project? In the Access project I can read/select any
> table in the database,
> >but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
> >
> >''
> >
> >Thanks, again.
> >
> >Larry Woods
> >
> >"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote in message
> >news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> Hi Larry,
> >>
> >> ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
> >> database. If there are other databases you can attack to
> >> then you may have different access rights.
> >>
> >> I would sugest you have a look at
> >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
> >> url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
> >> groups for a bit of background
> >>
> >> Peter
> >> MCDBA
> >>
> >>
> >> >--Original Message--
> >> >My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM
> >> on the workstation.
> >> >The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the
> >> userid has "public"
> >> >and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have
> complete
> >> access to all
> >> >tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the
> >> permissions dialogs?
> >> >
> >> >My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC"
> permissions.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks, again.
> >> >
> >> >Larry Woods
> >> >
> >> >And,
> >> >"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in
> >> message
> >> >news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> >> wrong
> >> >> table permissions are important. They are required
> in
> >> order to
> >> >> access/update/delete data.
> >> >>
> >> >> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
> >> >> NT Authentication?
> >> >> SQL Server Authentication?
> >> >>
> >> >> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa?
> >> If so, that is the
> >> >> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do
> >> anything and everything.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT
> >> account have? Is it
> >> >> assigned server or database roles that allow the
> >> activities that you are
> >> >> performing?
> >> >>
> >> >> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to
> >> the PUBLIC role?
> >> >> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all
> rights
> >> to the public
> >> >> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the
> >> rights assigned to
> >> >the
> >> >> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad
> >> security model.
> >> >>
> >> >> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works
> >> well when it is setup
> >> >by
> >> >> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong
> >> hands...
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Keith
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in
> message
> >> >> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> >> > I have a SQL Server database that has database
> >> userid/password
> >> >protection.
> >> >> > When I open the database through EM I can
> >> add/delete/modify any table,
> >> >but
> >> >> > when I look at the permissions for any of the
> tables
> >> there are NO
> >> >options
> >> >> > set for any user of the database! I don't
> understand
> >> the purpose of the
> >> >> > permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be
> set
> >> in order to get
> >> >> access
> >> >> > to the tables.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > TIA,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Larry Woods
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >.
> >> >
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||How do you link your tables? Try using a specific user that has the
appropriate permissions within SQL Server.
--
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:elv2x3LdEHA.3792@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, Peter.
> That may be, but I can't find any place in Access where you can set
> permissions.
> Any suggestions?
> Larry Woods
> "Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5dfb01c474b8$6cc4d560$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> > Probably because you do not have permissions in Access to
> > chenge the database, however in SQL Server you have
> > db_owner permission that does allow you to.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> > >--Original Message--
> > >Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now,
> > tackle the other
> > >email that I sent! ;-)
> > >
> > >Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but
> > NOT through a Access
> > >project? In the Access project I can read/select any
> > table in the database,
> > >but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
> > >
> > >''
> > >
> > >Thanks, again.
> > >
> > >Larry Woods
> > >
> > >"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> > wrote in message
> > >news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> > >> Hi Larry,
> > >>
> > >> ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
> > >> database. If there are other databases you can attack to
> > >> then you may have different access rights.
> > >>
> > >> I would sugest you have a look at
> > >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
> > >> url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
> > >> groups for a bit of background
> > >>
> > >> Peter
> > >> MCDBA
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >--Original Message--
> > >> >My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM
> > >> on the workstation.
> > >> >The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the
> > >> userid has "public"
> > >> >and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have
> > complete
> > >> access to all
> > >> >tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the
> > >> permissions dialogs?
> > >> >
> > >> >My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC"
> > permissions.
> > >> >
> > >> >Thanks, again.
> > >> >
> > >> >Larry Woods
> > >> >
> > >> >And,
> > >> >"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in
> > >> message
> > >> >news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > >> >> wrong
> > >> >> table permissions are important. They are required
> > in
> > >> order to
> > >> >> access/update/delete data.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
> > >> >> NT Authentication?
> > >> >> SQL Server Authentication?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa?
> > >> If so, that is the
> > >> >> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do
> > >> anything and everything.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT
> > >> account have? Is it
> > >> >> assigned server or database roles that allow the
> > >> activities that you are
> > >> >> performing?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to
> > >> the PUBLIC role?
> > >> >> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all
> > rights
> > >> to the public
> > >> >> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the
> > >> rights assigned to
> > >> >the
> > >> >> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad
> > >> security model.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works
> > >> well when it is setup
> > >> >by
> > >> >> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong
> > >> hands...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Keith
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in
> > message
> > >> >> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > >> >> > I have a SQL Server database that has database
> > >> userid/password
> > >> >protection.
> > >> >> > When I open the database through EM I can
> > >> add/delete/modify any table,
> > >> >but
> > >> >> > when I look at the permissions for any of the
> > tables
> > >> there are NO
> > >> >options
> > >> >> > set for any user of the database! I don't
> > understand
> > >> the purpose of the
> > >> >> > permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be
> > set
> > >> in order to get
> > >> >> access
> > >> >> > to the tables.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > TIA,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Larry Woods
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >.
> > >> >
> > >
> > >
> > >.
> > >
>
Newbie: I don't understand user permissions for table access
I have a SQL Server database that has database userid/password protection.
When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table, but
when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO options
set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of the
permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get access
to the tables.
TIA,
Larry Woodswrong
table permissions are important. They are required in order to
access/update/delete data.
HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
NT Authentication?
SQL Server Authentication?
If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa? If so, that is the
"GOD" account. You have full permissions to do anything and everything.
If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT account have? Is it
assigned server or database roles that allow the activities that you are
performing?
Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to the PUBLIC role?
Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights to the public
role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the rights assigned to the
public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad security model.
SQL Server has a strong security model and it works well when it is setup by
someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong hands...
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I have a SQL Server database that has database userid/password protection.
> When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table, but
> when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO options
> set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of the
> permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get
access
> to the tables.
> TIA,
> Larry Woods
>|||My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM on the workstation.
The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the userid has "public"
and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete access to all
tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the permissions dialogs?
My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
Thanks, again.
Larry Woods
And,
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> wrong
> table permissions are important. They are required in order to
> access/update/delete data.
> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
> NT Authentication?
> SQL Server Authentication?
> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa? If so, that is the
> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do anything and everything.
> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT account have? Is it
> assigned server or database roles that allow the activities that you are
> performing?
> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to the PUBLIC role?
> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights to the public
> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the rights assigned to
the
> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad security model.
> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works well when it is setup
by
> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong hands...
> --
> Keith
>
> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
protection.[vbcol=seagreen]
but[vbcol=seagreen]
options[vbcol=seagreen]
> access
>|||Correct. The dbo_owner role allows you complete access to everything.
From Books Online
Roles
Fixed database role Description
db_owner Has all permissions in the database.
You can get to this page yourself. right-click on the Books Online icon in
your task bar. Select Jump to URL
enter the following:
mk:@.MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\Microso
ft%20SQL%20Server\80\Tools\Books\arc
hitec.chm::/8_ar_da_3xns.htm
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:uNv%23vFLdEHA.3380@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM on the
workstation.
> The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the userid has "public"
> and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete access to all
> tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the permissions dialogs?
> My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
> Thanks, again.
> Larry Woods
> And,
> "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> the
setup[vbcol=seagreen]
> by
> protection.
> but
> options
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||Hi Larry,
ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
database. If there are other databases you can attack to
then you may have different access rights.
I would sugest you have a look at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
groups for a bit of background
Peter
MCDBA
>--Original Message--
>My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM
on the workstation.
>The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the
userid has "public"
>and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete
access to all
>tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the
permissions dialogs?
>My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
>Thanks, again.
>Larry Woods
>And,
>"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in
message
>news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
order to[vbcol=seagreen]
If so, that is the[vbcol=seagreen]
anything and everything.[vbcol=seagreen]
account have? Is it[vbcol=seagreen]
activities that you are[vbcol=seagreen]
the PUBLIC role?[vbcol=seagreen]
to the public[vbcol=seagreen]
rights assigned to[vbcol=seagreen]
>the
security model.[vbcol=seagreen]
well when it is setup[vbcol=seagreen]
>by
hands...[vbcol=seagreen]
userid/password[vbcol=seagreen]
>protection.
add/delete/modify any table,[vbcol=seagreen]
>but
there are NO[vbcol=seagreen]
>options
the purpose of the[vbcol=seagreen]
in order to get[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now, tackle the other
email that I sent! ;-)
Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but NOT through a Access
project? In the Access project I can read/select any table in the database,
but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
''
Thanks, again.
Larry Woods
"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Larry,
> ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
> database. If there are other databases you can attack to
> then you may have different access rights.
> I would sugest you have a look at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
> url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
> groups for a bit of background
> Peter
> MCDBA
>
> on the workstation.
> userid has "public"
> access to all
> permissions dialogs?
> message
> order to
> If so, that is the
> anything and everything.
> account have? Is it
> activities that you are
> the PUBLIC role?
> to the public
> rights assigned to
> security model.
> well when it is setup
> hands...
> userid/password
> add/delete/modify any table,
> there are NO
> the purpose of the
> in order to get|||Probably because you do not have permissions in Access to
chenge the database, however in SQL Server you have
db_owner permission that does allow you to.
Peter
>--Original Message--
>Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now,
tackle the other
>email that I sent! ;-)
>Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but
NOT through a Access
>project? In the Access project I can read/select any
table in the database,
>but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
>''
>Thanks, again.
>Larry Woods
>"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message
>news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
complete[vbcol=seagreen]
permissions.[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
rights[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
tables[vbcol=seagreen]
understand[vbcol=seagreen]
set[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||Thanks, Peter.
That may be, but I can't find any place in Access where you can set
permissions.
Any suggestions?
Larry Woods
"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5dfb01c474b8$6cc4d560$a501280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Probably because you do not have permissions in Access to
> chenge the database, however in SQL Server you have
> db_owner permission that does allow you to.
> Peter
>
> tackle the other
> NOT through a Access
> table in the database,
> wrote in message
> complete
> permissions.
> in
> rights
> message
> tables
> understand
> set|||How do you link your tables? Try using a specific user that has the
appropriate permissions within SQL Server.
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:elv2x3LdEHA.3792@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, Peter.
> That may be, but I can't find any place in Access where you can set
> permissions.
> Any suggestions?
> Larry Woods
> "Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5dfb01c474b8$6cc4d560$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
>
When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table, but
when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO options
set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of the
permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get access
to the tables.
TIA,
Larry Woodswrong
table permissions are important. They are required in order to
access/update/delete data.
HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
NT Authentication?
SQL Server Authentication?
If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa? If so, that is the
"GOD" account. You have full permissions to do anything and everything.
If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT account have? Is it
assigned server or database roles that allow the activities that you are
performing?
Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to the PUBLIC role?
Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights to the public
role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the rights assigned to the
public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad security model.
SQL Server has a strong security model and it works well when it is setup by
someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong hands...
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I have a SQL Server database that has database userid/password protection.
> When I open the database through EM I can add/delete/modify any table, but
> when I look at the permissions for any of the tables there are NO options
> set for any user of the database! I don't understand the purpose of the
> permissions, I guess, since they don't have to be set in order to get
access
> to the tables.
> TIA,
> Larry Woods
>|||My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM on the workstation.
The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the userid has "public"
and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete access to all
tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the permissions dialogs?
My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
Thanks, again.
Larry Woods
And,
"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> wrong
> table permissions are important. They are required in order to
> access/update/delete data.
> HOW are you connecting to SQL Server?
> NT Authentication?
> SQL Server Authentication?
> If SQL Server auth, what account are you using? sa? If so, that is the
> "GOD" account. You have full permissions to do anything and everything.
> If you are using NT auth, what rights does your NT account have? Is it
> assigned server or database roles that allow the activities that you are
> performing?
> Finally, what rights/permissions have been granted to the PUBLIC role?
> Often (unfortunately) companies simply grant all rights to the public
> role...and then evey account (SQL and NT) inherit the rights assigned to
the
> public role. For obvious reasons this is a bad security model.
> SQL Server has a strong security model and it works well when it is setup
by
> someone who knows what they are doing. In the wrong hands...
> --
> Keith
>
> "Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
> news:eM31J1KdEHA.3864@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
protection.[vbcol=seagreen]
but[vbcol=seagreen]
options[vbcol=seagreen]
> access
>|||Correct. The dbo_owner role allows you complete access to everything.
From Books Online
Roles
Fixed database role Description
db_owner Has all permissions in the database.
You can get to this page yourself. right-click on the Books Online icon in
your task bar. Select Jump to URL
enter the following:
mk:@.MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\Microso
ft%20SQL%20Server\80\Tools\Books\arc
hitec.chm::/8_ar_da_3xns.htm
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:uNv%23vFLdEHA.3380@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM on the
workstation.
> The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the userid has "public"
> and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete access to all
> tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the permissions dialogs?
> My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
> Thanks, again.
> Larry Woods
> And,
> "Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> the
setup[vbcol=seagreen]
> by
> protection.
> but
> options
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||Hi Larry,
ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
database. If there are other databases you can attack to
then you may have different access rights.
I would sugest you have a look at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
groups for a bit of background
Peter
MCDBA
>--Original Message--
>My database is remote to my workstation. I am using EM
on the workstation.
>The database has a userid/password (not 'sa') but the
userid has "public"
>and "db_owner" roles. Does the "db_owner" have complete
access to all
>tables/fields WITHOUT specifying anything in the
permissions dialogs?
>My "public" role only has "SELECT" and "EXEC" permissions.
>Thanks, again.
>Larry Woods
>And,
>"Keith Kratochvil" <sqlguy.back2u@.comcast.net> wrote in
message
>news:%23PTfc5KdEHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
order to[vbcol=seagreen]
If so, that is the[vbcol=seagreen]
anything and everything.[vbcol=seagreen]
account have? Is it[vbcol=seagreen]
activities that you are[vbcol=seagreen]
the PUBLIC role?[vbcol=seagreen]
to the public[vbcol=seagreen]
rights assigned to[vbcol=seagreen]
>the
security model.[vbcol=seagreen]
well when it is setup[vbcol=seagreen]
>by
hands...[vbcol=seagreen]
userid/password[vbcol=seagreen]
>protection.
add/delete/modify any table,[vbcol=seagreen]
>but
there are NO[vbcol=seagreen]
>options
the purpose of the[vbcol=seagreen]
in order to get[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now, tackle the other
email that I sent! ;-)
Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but NOT through a Access
project? In the Access project I can read/select any table in the database,
but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
''
Thanks, again.
Larry Woods
"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Larry,
> ob_owner means you can do anything to that particular
> database. If there are other databases you can attack to
> then you may have different access rights.
> I would sugest you have a look at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
> url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_da_8yur.asp and its sub
> groups for a bit of background
> Peter
> MCDBA
>
> on the workstation.
> userid has "public"
> access to all
> permissions dialogs?
> message
> order to
> If so, that is the
> anything and everything.
> account have? Is it
> activities that you are
> the PUBLIC role?
> to the public
> rights assigned to
> security model.
> well when it is setup
> hands...
> userid/password
> add/delete/modify any table,
> there are NO
> the purpose of the
> in order to get|||Probably because you do not have permissions in Access to
chenge the database, however in SQL Server you have
db_owner permission that does allow you to.
Peter
>--Original Message--
>Thanks for the quick response from all you guys. Now,
tackle the other
>email that I sent! ;-)
>Why can I get to my SQL Server db tables through EM but
NOT through a Access
>project? In the Access project I can read/select any
table in the database,
>but no modify/add/delete capabilities.
>''
>Thanks, again.
>Larry Woods
>"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message
>news:5c1a01c474b4$b6cba070$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
complete[vbcol=seagreen]
permissions.[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
rights[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
tables[vbcol=seagreen]
understand[vbcol=seagreen]
set[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||Thanks, Peter.
That may be, but I can't find any place in Access where you can set
permissions.
Any suggestions?
Larry Woods
"Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5dfb01c474b8$6cc4d560$a501280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Probably because you do not have permissions in Access to
> chenge the database, however in SQL Server you have
> db_owner permission that does allow you to.
> Peter
>
> tackle the other
> NOT through a Access
> table in the database,
> wrote in message
> complete
> permissions.
> in
> rights
> message
> tables
> understand
> set|||How do you link your tables? Try using a specific user that has the
appropriate permissions within SQL Server.
Keith
"Larry Woods" <larry@.NOSPAMlwoods.com> wrote in message
news:elv2x3LdEHA.3792@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, Peter.
> That may be, but I can't find any place in Access where you can set
> permissions.
> Any suggestions?
> Larry Woods
> "Peter the Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5dfb01c474b8$6cc4d560$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)