Re: Security bug?
From: R. van Noorloos (renennospam@syfact.com)
Date: 01/23/03
- Next message: Moff: "Re: Is this really the best way?"
- Previous message: Ingar Eide: "Re: Secure a SQL-Server 2000 database."
- In reply to: Kevin McDonnell [MS]: "Re: Security bug?"
- Next in thread: John Alderson: "Re: Security bug?"
- Reply: John Alderson: "Re: Security bug?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "R. van Noorloos" <renennospam@syfact.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:27:11 +0100
Kevin
Thanks, I know there is more, but a blank password is easely overseen if you
standard install with NT security and not aware of this. And also
administrators could be denied access to a database/sql server,depending on
the confidentiallity of the stored information.
But it is good to know SP3 is forcing it anyway.
Kind regards
René van Noorloos
Syfact int'l
"Kevin McDonnell [MS]" <kevmc@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:Y5oyS$XwCHA.3048@cpmsftngxa06...
> Also, installing sp3 will prompt the user to change a blank 'sa' password.
> Only Administrators should be allowed to modify the servers registry key.
> There's more to securing a server than supplying a good 'sa' password...
>
>
> Kevin McDonnell
> Microsoft SQL Server Support
>
- Next message: Moff: "Re: Is this really the best way?"
- Previous message: Ingar Eide: "Re: Secure a SQL-Server 2000 database."
- In reply to: Kevin McDonnell [MS]: "Re: Security bug?"
- Next in thread: John Alderson: "Re: Security bug?"
- Reply: John Alderson: "Re: Security bug?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
