> are you arguing semantics or ideas on how to lock down a cf
> application. locking down the CFIDE is just another catch. it may just
> be enforcing your database lockdown, but it another layer of
> enforcement none the less.
>
It isn't another layer of enforcement. It is a redundant and irrelevant
setting in the case you describe.
> no. if a user access my db, and they only have permissions to
> executre on packages.... thats _all_ they will see. Thats how the
> security works. if they try and query on a table... they get an error
> saying it doesnt exist. if they try and execture a procedure they dont
> have access to... again an error saying it doesnt exist.
>
No, if the person uses the login that your application uses. There is
always another login that has full access to the database.
-Matt
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
- Re: Securing CF Apps. Matt Liotta
- RE: RE: Securing CF Apps. Burns, John D
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Tony Weeg
- Re: Securing CF Apps. Kwang Suh
- Re: RE: Securing CF Apps. Kwang Suh
- RE: RE: Securing CF Apps. Paul Vernon
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Tim Blair
- Re: Securing CF Apps. Adrocknaphobia
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Kwang Suh
- Re: Securing CF Apps. Adrocknaphobia
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Matt Liotta
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Tangorre, Michael
- Re: Securing CF Apps. Kwang Suh
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Heald, Tim
- Re: Securing CF Apps. Matt Liotta
- Re: RE: Securing CF Apps. Kwang Suh
- RE: RE: Securing CF Apps. Tom Kitta
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Heald, Tim
- Re: Securing CF Apps. Matt Liotta
- RE: RE: Securing CF Apps. Heald, Tim
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Conan Saunders