Securing database with separate front-end / back-end

[Stephen Poley]

Whenever anyone has a question about securing an Access database he/she
is usually referred (unsurprisingly) to the Security FAQ. This is
however incomplete/unclear with respect to databases with a separate
front-end and back-end, which is rather surprising considering that all
Access databases should be split into a separate front-end and back-end.

Noticing that there are quite a lot of questions on this subject in the
Access newsgroups I have put together a page on the subject, in the hope
that it will be of use:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/tech/access-security.html

I do not however claim to be an Access guru, so I would be grateful if
people familiar with this area would have a look to check that nothing
there is obscure, incomplete, or plain screwed-up.

--
Stephen Poley

[Tom van Stiphout]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:03:04 +0200, Stephen Poley
<sb******************@xs4all.nlwrote:

Few comments:
* The term "back-end" occurs 23 times in the S-FAQ. Several topics
(e.g. table links) only make sense in the context of split databases.
* MySQL is not necessarily a secure db. I woudn't name it in the same
breath as Oracle or SQL Server.
* The Exchange "feature" you're experiencing is not related to that
core product, but to configuration options or 3rd party tools.

-Tom.

>Whenever anyone has a question about securing an Access database he/she
is usually referred (unsurprisingly) to the Security FAQ. This is
however incomplete/unclear with respect to databases with a separate
front-end and back-end, which is rather surprising considering that all
Access databases should be split into a separate front-end and back-end.

Noticing that there are quite a lot of questions on this subject in the
Access newsgroups I have put together a page on the subject, in the hope
that it will be of use:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/tech/access-security.html

I do not however claim to be an Access guru, so I would be grateful if
people familiar with this area would have a look to check that nothing
there is obscure, incomplete, or plain screwed-up.

[Stephen Poley]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:34:19 -0700, Tom van Stiphout
<no*************@cox.netwrote:

>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:03:04 +0200, Stephen Poley
<sb******************@xs4all.nlwrote:

Few comments:
* The term "back-end" occurs 23 times in the S-FAQ. Several topics
(e.g. table links) only make sense in the context of split databases.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying there. Are you suggesting that the
material in my page is in fact in the FAQ? (And if so, which section?)

>* MySQL is not necessarily a secure db. I woudn't name it in the same
breath as Oracle or SQL Server.

That's probably a fair comment. I will remove it.

>* The Exchange "feature" you're experiencing is not related to that
core product, but to configuration options or 3rd party tools.

All I know is that (a) I've had that problem at all three Exchange-using
organisations where I've tried to mail MDB files, (b) on enquiring with
the system administrator of one of them, he said that this was standard
Exchange functionality, and that he had most certainly not selected any
option to block Access files.

>
-Tom.

>>Whenever anyone has a question about securing an Access database he/she
is usually referred (unsurprisingly) to the Security FAQ. This is
however incomplete/unclear with respect to databases with a separate
front-end and back-end, which is rather surprising considering that all
Access databases should be split into a separate front-end and back-end.

Noticing that there are quite a lot of questions on this subject in the
Access newsgroups I have put together a page on the subject, in the hope
that it will be of use:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/tech/access-security.html

I do not however claim to be an Access guru, so I would be grateful if
people familiar with this area would have a look to check that nothing
there is obscure, incomplete, or plain screwed-up.

--
Stephen Poley

[David W. Fenton]

Stephen Poley <sb******************@xs4all.nlwrote in
news:ji********************************@4ax.com:

Noticing that there are quite a lot of questions on this subject
in the Access newsgroups I have put together a page on the
subject, in the hope that it will be of use:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/tech/access-security.html

This article has useful information for beginners, but I don't see
that it is justified to call it an article on "security." It's
really more a primer on split databases, or more a jumble of topics
that are only loosely related.

And I agree that the Exchange issue seems completely out of place.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Stephen Poley]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:42:09 -0500, "David W. Fenton"
<XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote:

>Stephen Poley <sb******************@xs4all.nlwrote in
news:ji********************************@4ax.com :

>Noticing that there are quite a lot of questions on this subject
in the Access newsgroups I have put together a page on the
subject, in the hope that it will be of use:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/tech/access-security.html

This article has useful information for beginners, but I don't see
that it is justified to call it an article on "security." It's
really more a primer on split databases, or more a jumble of topics
that are only loosely related.

I think you're exaggerating rather. Only about four paragraphs are not
directly related to the main subject. But I'll see if I can tighten it
up a bit. Thanks for responding.

--
Stephen Poley