Re: change user1 access changes user2 access
From: Ron (anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 04/07/05
- Previous message: Joseph MCAD: "Re: change user1 access changes user2 access"
- In reply to: Joseph MCAD: "Re: change user1 access changes user2 access"
- Next in thread: Ron: "Re: change user1 access changes user2 access"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:10:07 -0700
Yes, I thought so. Thanks for your reply. Anyway, I did
click on the Role option, but I did not see anywhere for
creating a new or custom role. May I ask how this is
done? This is definitely what I need to do.
Thanks again,
Ron
>-----Original Message-----
>April 7, 2005
>
> Using the public role is your problem. All users,
whether it be User1,
>User2, UserX, are members of this role. By granting the
public role
>permission you are granting All users the permissions.
You should create a
>new role specifically for this certain login and then
grant that role
>permissions. Then just add users to the new role. This is
why it seems that
>the users are tied together. It is recommended by
security experts to never
>grant permission to the public role, but to instead
create custom roles! I
>am glad I could be of help! :-)
>
>
Joseph MCAD
>
>
>"Ron" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:122201c53ba3$b17bdd40$a601280a@phx.gbl...
>> The way I am creating new logins is by going to the
>> Security Icon in EM. I click on New Login. I assign a
>> name, a password, I select a database to login to, then
go
>> the the Database Access and select the same database
again
>> then in the Permit In Database Role window, I select
>> public, I click on properties, then I click on
Permissions
>> in the Database Role Type window. Then I click on what
>> the user should have access to. So all the users have
the
>> same database role on the same database. Do I need to
>> change the role in order to set the respective
permissions
>> for the respective users? What is the recommended role
>> for a user who should only look at certain tables? For
a
>> user that should only be able to execute certain SP's?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Ron
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>April 7, 2005
>>>
>>> When you are giving permissions to User1, are you
>> giving permissions to a
>>>group that User1 belongs to? If you are assigning
>> permissions to User1
>>>through a group membership, then it sounds to me like
>> User2 is in the same
>>>group. If this is the case then make sure User2 is not
in
>> any groups that
>>>you are using to assign permission to User1. Hope this
>> helps! :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Joseph MCAD
>>>
>>>
>>>"Ron" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message
>>>news:020001c53b8a$54890a40$a501280a@phx.gbl...
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I have set up some accounts on Sql Server 2k. I am
just
>>>> starting out with Security stuff. A problem that I am
>>>> having is that when I assign access to one account,
>> user1,
>>>> the next account, user2, appears to pick up the same
>>>> access to things. Ideally, I want user1 to be able to
>>>> connect to tables and user2 to be able to execute
stored
>>>> procedures. But boths users seem to acquire the same
>>>> access when I set one. Then when I reset the other,
the
>>>> first user now has the same access as the second user.
>> Is
>>>> there a way to separate this?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Ron
>>>
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>
>
>.
>
- Previous message: Joseph MCAD: "Re: change user1 access changes user2 access"
- In reply to: Joseph MCAD: "Re: change user1 access changes user2 access"
- Next in thread: Ron: "Re: change user1 access changes user2 access"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
