ms sql server 2000 security too weak ?

It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
, why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
is too simple, just copy and read it.
Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
--
Best regards,
Ridwan
--
PemBukuan.Com
http://www.as3000.com"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
> , why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
> copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
> read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
> at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
> is too simple, just copy and read it.
> Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
> technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
> Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
- NTFS security
- Data Encryption
- Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
easily.
b.t.w. there is nearly no protection against harddisk access by a
technician. You can't blame MS for that. But data encryption by the
application that uses MSDE is a solution...|||1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
another server without any protection.
2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance while
we process large amount of data
I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy to
maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be that's
much better than let it open.
> You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
> - NTFS security
> - Data Encryption
> - Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
> easily.
> b.t.w. there is nearly no protection against harddisk access by a
> technician. You can't blame MS for that. But data encryption by the
> application that uses MSDE is a solution...|||"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
> 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
> database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
> another server without any protection.
> 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance while
> we process large amount of data
see below...
> I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy to
> maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
> excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
> specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
> mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
> Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be that's
> much better than let it open.
Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools' that
are available on the net.
So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
(public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file. A
single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained, useless.
Cheers,|||hi
what is necessary to do for encrypt data?
--
atte,
Hernán Castelo
UTN Buenos Aires
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS)" <egbert_nierop@.nospam.invalid> escribió en el mensaje
news:uj3L1IFIEHA.3356@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
> , why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
> copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
> read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
> at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
> is too simple, just copy and read it.
> Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
> technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
> Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
- NTFS security
- Data Encryption
- Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
easily.
b.t.w. there is nearly no protection against harddisk access by a
technician. You can't blame MS for that. But data encryption by the
application that uses MSDE is a solution...|||> "Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS)" <egbert_nierop@.nospam.invalid> escribió en
el mensaje
> news:uj3L1IFIEHA.3356@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> > It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
> > , why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
> > copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
> > read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
> >
> > at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
> > is too simple, just copy and read it.
> >
> > Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
> > technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
> >
> > Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
> You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
> - NTFS security
> - Data Encryption
> - Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
> easily.
"Hernán Castelo" <hhh@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23KshfkMIEHA.3476@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> hi
> what is necessary to do for encrypt data?
> --
> atte,
> Hernán Castelo
> UTN Buenos Aires
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
Your application can encrypt data. If you have .NET you can use Rijnhaeve
(If I spell correctly) and such. .NET samples show how to do it.
With C++ (7.0 and higher) there are encryption templates as well.|||You didn't get my question, what I mean is if your database which you
have protect with the algorithm and re-install by somebody in their
server, then all your data will be seen and access using their 'sa'
login, so where's the protection ?
Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:
> "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
> > 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
> > database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
> > another server without any protection.
> >
> > 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance while
> > we process large amount of data
> see below...
> > I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy to
> > maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
> > excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
> > specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
> > mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
> >
> > Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be that's
> > much better than let it open.
> Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
> stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools' that
> are available on the net.
> So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
> (public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file. A
> single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained, useless.
> Cheers,|||If the user is an administrator of the SQL Server, then they can steal your
MDF files. But then, they can do anything anyway.
If the user is an administrator of the Windows machine that SQL Server is
on, then they can steal everything on the server anyway.
Normal users can not do this.
So, you need to trust your administrators.
Anyway, even if there was a "separate" password, how would your applications
access the database? They would need the password, which means it has to be
stored somewhere, which means the administrator could steal it from there
(eg from the client application, or by monitoring the traffic that goes into
SQL Server).
Cheers
Ken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:407B4E73.682C@.centrin.net.id...
: You didn't get my question, what I mean is if your database which you
: have protect with the algorithm and re-install by somebody in their
: server, then all your data will be seen and access using their 'sa'
: login, so where's the protection ?
:
:
:
: Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:
: >
: > "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
: > news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
: > > 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
: > > database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
: > > another server without any protection.
: > >
: > > 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance
while
: > > we process large amount of data
: >
: > see below...
: >
: > > I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy
to
: > > maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
: > > excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
: > > specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
: > > mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
: > >
: > > Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be
that's
: > > much better than let it open.
: >
: > Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
: > stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools'
that
: > are available on the net.
: > So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
: > (public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file.
A
: > single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained,
useless.
: >
: > Cheers,
:|||Sometimes trusting people too full is risky to the company, it should be
a double checking procedure and control by two authorized person.
About the monitoring data traffic is not very easy do that if the
application using a native database driver, except ODBC.
My suggestion is when attaching the MDF files will require the original
serial number of ms.sql server 2000 where it was created, I think at
least this is another way to protect the MDF files, even somebody or the
kick out administrator copy it, then it's useless, they should know the
serial number to access the MDF.
What do you think ?
brgs,
Ridwan
Ken Schaefer wrote:
> If the user is an administrator of the SQL Server, then they can steal your
> MDF files. But then, they can do anything anyway.
> If the user is an administrator of the Windows machine that SQL Server is
> on, then they can steal everything on the server anyway.
> Normal users can not do this.
> So, you need to trust your administrators.
> Anyway, even if there was a "separate" password, how would your applications
> access the database? They would need the password, which means it has to be
> stored somewhere, which means the administrator could steal it from there
> (eg from the client application, or by monitoring the traffic that goes into
> SQL Server).
> Cheers
> Ken
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> news:407B4E73.682C@.centrin.net.id...
> : You didn't get my question, what I mean is if your database which you
> : have protect with the algorithm and re-install by somebody in their
> : server, then all your data will be seen and access using their 'sa'
> : login, so where's the protection ?
> :
> :
> :
> : Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:
> : >
> : > "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> : > news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
> : > > 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
> : > > database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
> : > > another server without any protection.
> : > >
> : > > 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance
> while
> : > > we process large amount of data
> : >
> : > see below...
> : >
> : > > I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy
> to
> : > > maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
> : > > excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
> : > > specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
> : > > mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
> : > >
> : > > Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be
> that's
> : > > much better than let it open.
> : >
> : > Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
> : > stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools'
> that
> : > are available on the net.
> : > So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
> : > (public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file.
> A
> : > single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained,
> useless.
> : >
> : > Cheers,
> :|||> what is necessary to do for encrypt data?
>
Checkout www.database-encryption.com
www.sql-shield.com|||Hi
You are quite right Ridwan. MSSQL is exceptionally weak when it comes to
this. You have hit the nail right on the head. We are quite astonished
that MS has not taken data security seriously. They could at least have
provided some sort of encryption technique that could have restricted access
to all objects in the database outside of SA or sysadmin. The basic
underlying structure of their SQL engine is at fault here. The SA login is
a disaster as is the total control given to sysadmin. It basically makes
the product quite unusable in a mission critical environment. Nothing more,
nothing less. If you do not turn to third party tools to help you with this
dilemna you are basically stuck. If you take data security seriously you
are snookered. You may have to look for a more serious DBMS. We are
currently looking at third party options but most of them do not lock down
table structures and relationships. Hoping to find something that will lock
down the entire database so that it is NOT accessible on another server by
some individual that has gaily made his/her self system administrator. A
shocking state of affairs.
Cheers
Andre
"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
> , why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
> copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
> read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
> at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
> is too simple, just copy and read it.
> Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
> technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
> Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Ridwan
> --
> PemBukuan.Com
> http://www.as3000.com
>