SQL 6.5 - Rights - Not Working Correctly

From: Dave (dnajac@ezecastlesoftware.com)
Date: 10/01/02 

From: "Dave" <dnajac@ezecastlesoftware.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:34:27 -0700

I figured out the issue and thought I would share it in
the event that someonelse every encounters this issue-

At some point, someone granted the SQL PUBLIC role with
full access to all objects in the database, thus it didn't
matter what specific rights you granted via user-defined
groups, as the user was receiving the additional rights
via it's membership in PUBLIC.

ex:
1. You give members of the ReadOnly role SELECT rights to
Table1
2. The PUBLIC role has SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE & DELETE
rights to Table1
3. The end result is that anyone in the ReadOnly role can
INSERT, UPDATE & DELETE from Table1 due to their inherited
rights in the PUBLIC role.

>-----Original Message-----
>I have one particular SQL 6.5 server that I am having a
>rights issue with for certain SQL users that are a member
>of a restricted rights group in one of the databases on
>the server. As an example, I have a user named 'Dave'
>that is a member of the group 'ReadOnly' in database
XYZ.
>In the XYZ database there is a table named Table1 that
>allows the 'ReadOnly' group to have SELECT access only
(no
>other rights or restrictions). The stange thing is that
>this user is able to INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE records in
>this table (he is not a member of any other groups, dbo,
>etc). The same configuration on other SQL 6.5 servers
>works fine. Has anyone encountered this issue before?
>
>Thanks,
>Dave
>.
>

Relevant Pages

  • SQL 6.5 - Rights - Not Working Correctly
    ... rights issue with for certain SQL users that are a member ... the server. ... that is a member of the group 'ReadOnly' in database XYZ. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.security)
  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... Otherwise, a foreigner like Verdugo could, but Rehnquist rightly pointed out that as he was NOT a member of THE PEOPLE CLASS, he could NOT claim the right, even though he IS an individual, but NOT AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE PEOPLE. ... But, as Rehnquist points out, the rights of the 4th Amen extend ONLY to THE PEOPLE! ... How would an 80-year-old black woman from Haiti having an "individual right" to "own and carry guns" further the security of a free state to have a well-regulated militia, when such a person would be FOUR WAYS prohibited from SERVING in the militia or VOTING for the legislature that organizes and controls it? ... OR, and this is where the BoR comes in, any rights they MAY have claimed were not PROTECTED or GUARANTEED by the Constitution! ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnelL Nixes District Of Columbia Voting Rights In Sente
    ... House Member ... representation in the U.S. House. ... The bill would grant full voting rights to the District's ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Delegation of groups admin. - restricted to a subset of object
    ... goto the members tab and add something as a member ... # Jorge de Almeida Pinto # MVP Windows Server - Directory Services ... * This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties and confers no rights! ... OU's and if in my ou i have delegate only to computers to write memeberof ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... They didn't forfeit them; ... Did KIDS forfeit their 4th Amen rights? ... did felons "forfeit" their right to Freedom of Religion? ... NO, he simply was NOT a member of THE PEOPLE CLASS that had the right, ...
    (talk.politics.guns)