Avoiding the Creation of a Blank Database

[Sandro]

Hello!


Is there any way for us to avoid the creation of a Blank Database in Access
97? We need to do that to complete a set of security measures to avoid the
import/export and linking to our main Database Application.



Thanks in Advance.

 

[Maurice]

You could create a runtime version of the mdb file...
You might have to wonder around a bit to find the runtime kit for 97 though.

hth

 

[a a r o n _ k e m p f]

wow, it sounds to me like Jet Compact and Repair is too complex for
you.

If I were you, I would upsize to SQL Server and Access Data Projects

 

[Sandro]

Thank you for all the Answers!

 

[GenlAccess]

You say MVP, BUT even with the MS online interface, no little logo, sweetie.

All Access users but raw newbies know Access' security is not worth using.
Much less worth recommending by someone claiming to be an MVP. Go to
http://accesstools.narod.ru/ and get a freebie -- break Access' lame security
like snappin your fingers.

You been dippin too much eggnog to celebrate or just dense as ol' aaron,
Chrissie?

Genl Access

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

You say MVP, BUT even with the MS online interface, no little logo, sweetie.

I'm satisfied that he's an MVP from his postings in the online forums
in the past. And he has quite good reasons for not identifying
himself fully or having a profile on the MS website.

You been dippin too much eggnog to celebrate or just dense as ol' aaron,
Chrissie?

Please refrain from derogatory or condescending postings.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

 

[Larry Linson]

Please refrain from derogatory or condescending postings.

He may have been condescending, but Gen Access was right about Access'
security. I, too, am surprised that Chris O'C would recommend it. It can be
useful for keeping honest people from tripping over their own feet by
stumbling into the wrong form, but certainly not useful for protecting data
nor the application itself.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Office Access MVP

 

[James A. Fortune]

You say MVP, BUT even with the MS online interface, no little logo, sweetie.

Maybe Microsoft awarded him an MVP for Trolling. You really can't
advertise that, but it might get you into some MVP areas . There
really aren't too many possibilities for his reticence, and precious few
of those are any good. Therefore, I'm impressed by his unsubstantiated
MVP claim in some anonymous area -- negatively.

All Access users but raw newbies know Access' security is not worth using.
Much less worth recommending by someone claiming to be an MVP.

Actually, advertising obsolete features could be construed by some as an
argument in "favor" of his being an MVP .

You been dippin too much eggnog to celebrate or just dense as ol' aaron,
Chrissie?

Even so, I can't fault your logic. Anyone who reads posts in, say,
AccessMonster.com, even casually, should have known that Access'
built-in security is easily broken.

Genl Access

:

James A. Fortune
(e-mail address removed)

A troll actually believes that trolls are beneficial somehow (besides
their true benefit of keeping posters from complaining about truly
trivial things compared to what the trolls are doing):

If you stopped being so prejudiced, you might learn more.

I troll, but a lot of my stuff is good. I troll because, as I have
admitted (no mystery), you get more replies that way. Look at the
hapless saps who don't know how to make a polarizing post (the technical
writer's term for a troll post--it's done in newspapers all the time,
especially with headlines, which usually have a specialist headline
writer who is quite good at hooking interest in a story) in this
newsgroup. They don't know to use Madison Avenue techniques that are
nearly a century old. Instead, the [sic] post a 'well reasoned' post
asking for help, and nobody replies. Although half the time they solve
the problem themselves anyway on a good night's sleep (as I have), if
they really wanted to get a reply they would have used a header such as
"HELP! I DARE YOU TO SOLVE THIS BUG!! CA$H REWARD!!!" or something
equally obnoxious but effective. And they would have had 10 people
responding, half, like you, nagging, nattering Net nannies complaining
about wasting bandwidth (in this day of dark fiber, LOL) and the other
half, in a back-hand concession, solving the poster's problem, which is
what you want.

....

This is an unmoderated newsgroup; flaming is OK on occasion. It blows
off steam. In the early days of the Internet you could even make death
threats and get away with it, before they changed the law. Ah, those
were the days...

-- RayLopez99 in microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp

 

[James A. Fortune]

My family has a long history with the KKK. I've learned it's not hard to see
who's hiding under white sheets, trying to insult and intimidate anonymously.

Chris

There's no reason to hide. The KKK doesn't shoot trolls .

James A. Fortune
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Rick Brandt]

He may have been condescending, but Gen Access was right about Access'
security. I, too, am surprised that Chris O'C would recommend it. It
can be useful for keeping honest people from tripping over their own
feet by stumbling into the wrong form, but certainly not useful for
protecting data nor the application itself.

I never use it anymore, and I hesitate to recommend it to anyone that is
not already familiar with it simply because it is so difficult to "get".
However if there is only one redeeming aspect of ULS it is this...

With just about any other home-grown security-by-obscurity system, a user
could circumvent it and yet claim that they were not being intentionally
snoopy or devious. "I turned on view hidden objects and there were some
new tables. I was just curious". "I was playing around in another file
and on a lark ended up importing the tables from this file. Since I was
allowed to do it I saw no harm". "I read something on-line about this
shift-key thing and was just experimenting".

While obtaining tools to break ULS might be fairly easy to do, a person
that actually does it forfeits any claim to innocence. You can't
inadvertently break (properly implemented) ULS. You can't claim that you
weren't aware that what you did was inappropriate. It is crossing a
different line in the sand and some might find value in having that
line. It doesn't meet the bar for *actual* data security, but an
argument can be made that it is still the best you can do without going
to a server or some complex encryption scheme.

 

[David W. Fenton]

advertising obsolete features could be construed by some as an
argument in "favor" of his being an MVP

User-level security is not an "obsolete feature." Jet 4 is a native
file format for the current version of Access and ULS is fully
supported in A2K7 with that format (i.e., MDB).

The fact that the newly introduced file format doesn't support it
doesn't make it obsolete.

 

[James A. Fortune]

I never use it anymore, and I hesitate to recommend it to anyone that is
not already familiar with it simply because it is so difficult to "get".
However if there is only one redeeming aspect of ULS it is this...

With just about any other home-grown security-by-obscurity system, a user
could circumvent it and yet claim that they were not being intentionally
snoopy or devious. "I turned on view hidden objects and there were some
new tables. I was just curious". "I was playing around in another file
and on a lark ended up importing the tables from this file. Since I was
allowed to do it I saw no harm". "I read something on-line about this
shift-key thing and was just experimenting".

While obtaining tools to break ULS might be fairly easy to do, a person
that actually does it forfeits any claim to innocence. You can't
inadvertently break (properly implemented) ULS. You can't claim that you
weren't aware that what you did was inappropriate. It is crossing a
different line in the sand and some might find value in having that
line. It doesn't meet the bar for *actual* data security, but an
argument can be made that it is still the best you can do without going
to a server or some complex encryption scheme.

That's a great point. So ULS is a catalyst. It's presence is more
important than what it does. Very Zen.

James A. Fortune
(e-mail address removed)

Knowing when to use which side of the brain is a mark of a very wise person.

 

[a a r o n _ k e m p f]

User Level Security is _NOT_ available in Access 2007 (format).

Jet is obsolete, and it always has been .
That is why they've introduced a new format.

Also-- Jet became 100% obsolete back in the year 1999 when Access Data
Projects were introduced with the release of Office 2000.

Ever since then -- you've been insisting that it hasn't been
obsoleted.

But it's obvious to everyone now-- and it has been for a decade-- that
Jet is dead.

-Aaron

 

[a a r o n _ k e m p f]

Servers are _LESS_ complex than having 12 different tiers of Jet
databases.

User Level Security doesn't integrate with Windows Active Directory.
Thus, it is obsolete.
User Level Security doesn't integrate with Windows Active Directory.
Thus, it is obsolete.
User Level Security doesn't integrate with Windows Active Directory.
Thus, it is obsolete.

 

[a a r o n _ k e m p f]

dude you can't run Access through a firewall.

that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of in my life.

Maybe if you knew something about firewalls, you would know how silly
that sounds, to even say something like that.

-Aaron

My claim to be an MVP *is* substantiated.  Search for blue mvp icon andmy
name and you'll find several discussions and links to the proof.  The blue
MVP icon shows up next to my name whenever I post using the MS online
community website.

Don't be so quick to judge without walking a mile in my moccasins.  My
reticence is due to my boss hating MVPs.  If he found out I was one, I'd be
fired.  I don't know if you've checked the economy lately, but people are
walking on eggshells trying not to do anything that will land them in the
unemployment line.

I think you may have misunderstood me as if I'd made a recommendation for
user level security when I was trying to point out how to tell when the db
isn't properly secured.  I wrote:

"If anybody is able to import, export or link to the tables in a secure
Access 97 db, you haven't secured it properly."

Securing an Access db properly means taking *all* the steps necessary to
secure it, not just some.  A properly secured Access db is split, the data is
on a secure db server, and the front end incapable of connecting to the back
end tables until the user provides the correct user name and password,
because these should never be stored in an Access db.  If you stop after user
level security, you haven't taken all the steps to properly secure the db..

If I gave you a properly secured Access db file, you wouldn't be able to
import, export or link to the data because you wouldn't know the user name,
password and connect info to get past the firewall where the data is stored.

Chris
Microsoft MVP

There
really aren't too many possibilities for his reticence, and precious few
of those are any good.  Therefore, I'm impressed by his unsubstantiated
MVP claim in some anonymous area -- negatively.

Actually, advertising obsolete features could be construed by some as an
argument in "favor" of his being an MVP .

Even so, I can't fault your logic.  Anyone who reads posts in, say,
AccessMonster.com, even casually, should have known that Access'
built-in security is easily broken.

[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]

97? We need to do that to complete a set of security measures to avoid the
import/export and linking to our main Database Application.

James A. Fortune
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Larry Linson]

I choose not to engage in arguments with other MVPs in public newsgroups.
If you wish to have a discussion with me, you know where to reach me. I will
say that it seems highly ironic to me that someone who *always* posts
pseudonymously should even bother to feign offense at some other poster who
posts with a pseudonym.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Office Access MVP
(see my profile at http://mvp.support.microsoft.com)

 

[Larry Linson]

Your sheet-peeking techniques need more work if you believe what you have
posted here. As I said earlier, if you wish to have a discussion with me,
you know where to find me.