If I use a workstation connected to a SQL Server 2000, can I remote the SQL Server to copy some external files (mdf & ldf) from other network machine.
I need to do it by programming, under condition:
SQL Server name is provided.
Network paths of mdf & ldf files are provided.You need to detach them using SP_DETACH_DB and copy them to the new location. Also refer to books online for RESTORE ... WITH MOVE topic for more information.
Showing posts with label mdf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mdf. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
-no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will simply
be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
password and ready, will have access to the data.
does Sql_Server have safety?
-has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the this
machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot use
MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in the
same position.
I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because it
reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
Sql-Server.Assuming the situation of a bank,
- physical security is just as important as application security. You
should already take the appropriate steps to protect your server physically.
- I do not think you can ever fit a bank's entire database into a removable
storage device for you to attach to another server (which would need just as
large a storage device as the source server)
Do tell, which mainstream database server protects its data files? At the
minimum, you would need to encrypt the contents lest you use a hex editor to
view the data directly, and encryption eats up cpu cycles.
--
Regards
Ray Mond
"Frank Dulk" <fdulk@.bol.com.br> wrote in message
news:e994$ARHEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
> -no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will
simply
> be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
> password and ready, will have access to the data.
> does Sql_Server have safety?
> -has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
> can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the
this
> machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
>
> After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot
use
> MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in
the
> same position.
> I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because
it
> reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
> Sql-Server.
>
>
-no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will simply
be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
password and ready, will have access to the data.
does Sql_Server have safety?
-has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the this
machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot use
MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in the
same position.
I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because it
reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
Sql-Server.Assuming the situation of a bank,
- physical security is just as important as application security. You
should already take the appropriate steps to protect your server physically.
- I do not think you can ever fit a bank's entire database into a removable
storage device for you to attach to another server (which would need just as
large a storage device as the source server)
Do tell, which mainstream database server protects its data files? At the
minimum, you would need to encrypt the contents lest you use a hex editor to
view the data directly, and encryption eats up cpu cycles.
--
Regards
Ray Mond
"Frank Dulk" <fdulk@.bol.com.br> wrote in message
news:e994$ARHEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
> -no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will
simply
> be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
> password and ready, will have access to the data.
> does Sql_Server have safety?
> -has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
> can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the
this
> machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
>
> After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot
use
> MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in
the
> same position.
> I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because
it
> reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
> Sql-Server.
>
>
Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
-no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will simply
be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
password and ready, will have access to the data.
does Sql_Server have safety?
-has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the this
machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot use
MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in the
same position.
I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because it
reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
Sql-Server.
Assuming the situation of a bank,
- physical security is just as important as application security. You
should already take the appropriate steps to protect your server physically.
- I do not think you can ever fit a bank's entire database into a removable
storage device for you to attach to another server (which would need just as
large a storage device as the source server)
Do tell, which mainstream database server protects its data files? At the
minimum, you would need to encrypt the contents lest you use a hex editor to
view the data directly, and encryption eats up cpu cycles.
Regards
Ray Mond
"Frank Dulk" <fdulk@.bol.com.br> wrote in message
news:e994$ARHEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
> -no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will
simply
> be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
> password and ready, will have access to the data.
> does Sql_Server have safety?
> -has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
> can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the
this
> machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
>
> After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot
use
> MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in
the
> same position.
> I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because
it
> reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
> Sql-Server.
>
>
-no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will simply
be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
password and ready, will have access to the data.
does Sql_Server have safety?
-has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the this
machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot use
MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in the
same position.
I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because it
reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
Sql-Server.
Assuming the situation of a bank,
- physical security is just as important as application security. You
should already take the appropriate steps to protect your server physically.
- I do not think you can ever fit a bank's entire database into a removable
storage device for you to attach to another server (which would need just as
large a storage device as the source server)
Do tell, which mainstream database server protects its data files? At the
minimum, you would need to encrypt the contents lest you use a hex editor to
view the data directly, and encryption eats up cpu cycles.
Regards
Ray Mond
"Frank Dulk" <fdulk@.bol.com.br> wrote in message
news:e994$ARHEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
> -no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will
simply
> be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
> password and ready, will have access to the data.
> does Sql_Server have safety?
> -has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
> can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the
this
> machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
>
> After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot
use
> MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in
the
> same position.
> I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because
it
> reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
> Sql-Server.
>
>
Labels:
access,
bank,
database,
files,
mdf,
microsoft,
mysql,
oracle,
protecting,
server,
simplybe,
sql,
sql-server,
sql-server-no,
user
Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
-no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will simply
be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
password and ready, will have access to the data.
does Sql_Server have safety?
-has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the this
machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot use
MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in the
same position.
I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because it
reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
Sql-Server.Assuming the situation of a bank,
- physical security is just as important as application security. You
should already take the appropriate steps to protect your server physically.
- I do not think you can ever fit a bank's entire database into a removable
storage device for you to attach to another server (which would need just as
large a storage device as the source server)
Do tell, which mainstream database server protects its data files? At the
minimum, you would need to encrypt the contents lest you use a hex editor to
view the data directly, and encryption eats up cpu cycles.
Regards
Ray Mond
"Frank Dulk" <fdulk@.bol.com.br> wrote in message
news:e994$ARHEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
> -no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will
simply
> be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
> password and ready, will have access to the data.
> does Sql_Server have safety?
> -has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
> can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the
this
> machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
>
> After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot
use
> MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in
the
> same position.
> I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because
it
> reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
> Sql-Server.
>
>
-no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will simply
be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
password and ready, will have access to the data.
does Sql_Server have safety?
-has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the this
machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot use
MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in the
same position.
I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because it
reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
Sql-Server.Assuming the situation of a bank,
- physical security is just as important as application security. You
should already take the appropriate steps to protect your server physically.
- I do not think you can ever fit a bank's entire database into a removable
storage device for you to attach to another server (which would need just as
large a storage device as the source server)
Do tell, which mainstream database server protects its data files? At the
minimum, you would need to encrypt the contents lest you use a hex editor to
view the data directly, and encryption eats up cpu cycles.
Regards
Ray Mond
"Frank Dulk" <fdulk@.bol.com.br> wrote in message
news:e994$ARHEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
> -no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will
simply
> be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
> password and ready, will have access to the data.
> does Sql_Server have safety?
> -has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
> can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the
this
> machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
>
> After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot
use
> MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in
the
> same position.
> I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because
it
> reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
> Sql-Server.
>
>
Labels:
access,
bank,
database,
files,
mdf,
microsoft,
mysql,
oracle,
protecting,
server,
simplybe,
sql,
sql-server,
sql-server-no,
user
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)