Re: PUBLIC db role
From: Aramid (aramid_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/29/05
- Next message: Russell Stevens: "Re: Internet password attacks"
- Previous message: ErwinB: "Re: Server Registration fails - figure this out !"
- In reply to: Uri Dimant: "Re: PUBLIC db role"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:20:01 +0800
Hi Uri,
The public role have no access to the user objects, by default. But
how about the access that it has on system objects? Are those
generally safe to leave on Public or should it be better for these to
be removed from Public and moved to a new role?
Thanks.
Aramid
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:00:30 +0300, "Uri Dimant" <urid@iscar.co.il>
wrote:
>Aramid
>If I remember well, by default members of public role have no access to the
>database.
>
>
>"Aramid" <aramid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:dopsg194fjsp63p9cougqb7hqsthrt3sst@4ax.com...
>> Hi Jasper,
>>
>> I would like to add another layer of security to my system. I just
>> used SQL Baseline Security Analyzer and it's telling me that I got
>> stored procedures assigned to public, but all I have there are the
>> default permissions.
>>
>> Aramid
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:54:14 +0100, "Jasper Smith"
>> <jasper_smith9@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What are you trying to achieve?
>>
>
- Next message: Russell Stevens: "Re: Internet password attacks"
- Previous message: ErwinB: "Re: Server Registration fails - figure this out !"
- In reply to: Uri Dimant: "Re: PUBLIC db role"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
