> server simply is not as secure as Windows. SQL server 2000
> does not support locking out, minimal password length,
> password expiry etc. So someone can setup a system whereas
> the SQL server is being bombarded with attempts to gain
> access, windows will lock the user out. SQL server admin
> guide recommends using windows authentication and fall back
> to SQL authentication in special circumstances (also for
> someone out there using win98 or winME which do not support
> windows authentication).
While in general, I would agree with this, I think that for web
applications, native SQL authentication is often better. You might have many
datasources on a single CF machine, for example, but if you're using Windows
authentication you'll only have one account for all your applications - the
one in which your CF service runs.
> As for running SQL server on private network, that would be
> fine except for remote administration - how can one with ease
> connect to a host on a private network from a remote location.
In that case, maybe you shouldn't be able to remotely administer your
database server. In any case, your database server should not arbitrarily
accept connections from anywhere in the world, and it really shouldn't be
accessible at all from a public network. It should only accept connections
from the web server, or from trusted internal sources. If you absolutely
need remote administration, you could administer it from the web server, I
suppose, although that has its own obvious problems.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
