Identity crisis?

James A. Fortune · Nov 1, 2009

A version of Outlook 2007 has suddenly appeared on my computer without
my initiation. I have good antivirus protection so it's likely that it
was done by the company I work for. Last week, other software was
installed on my computer by my company without my knowledge. When I
brought it up to them as a result of the software not uninstalling
itself completely (Oops), it was explained to me that they were running
software on everyone's computer to determine if all the software
installed on each computer was properly licensed. I haven't yet
determined whether the Outlook 2007 install was due to action by them or
by hackers, but I don't want to wait until Monday before warning others
of potential consequences. Unlike with comp.databases.ms-access, I post
to this NG through an email reader. Therefore, I am alerting everyone
to the possibility that someone might be able to impersonate me for
awhile. Any regular email not originating from my university user
account will definitely not be from me. I usually read all the posts to
this NG so I should be able to expose any fraudulent posts within a
reasonable time. I hope that my style is inimitable enough that no one
would be fooled by a forgery in any event. Thanks in advance for your
indulgence.

James A. Fortune
(e-mail address removed)

James A. Fortune · Nov 2, 2009

James said:
A version of Outlook 2007 has suddenly appeared on my computer without
my initiation.

It was done by the company I work for. They are going to Exchange
Server. They also decided to implement Internal Access security without
bothering to get my opinion first. Maybe some consultant told them it
was a good idea. Such examples of unilateral action indicate that it is
only a matter of time before other moves are made, such as the
possibility of Access getting replaced by SAP. I'll keep the things in
my office ready to be packed.

James A. Fortune
(e-mail address removed)

Tom van Stiphout · Nov 2, 2009

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:13:09 -0500, "James A. Fortune"

But then you can't get to them if they change the locks overnight :-)

What is "Internal Access security"?

-Tom.
Microsoft Access MVP

James A. Fortune · Nov 2, 2009

Tom said:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:13:09 -0500, "James A. Fortune"

But then you can't get to them if they change the locks overnight

What is "Internal Access security"?

-Tom.
Microsoft Access MVP

By Internal Access Security I mean using the Workgroup Administrator to
set up group access rights on tables, queries, forms, etc. If I'm not
mistaken, that would involve locking the database with a password so
that the objects can't be imported into a blank database to get around
the workgroup file limitations. I prefer to determine the access group
level by finding the identity of the network user with an API function
(maybe with a .NET function in the future) and rely more on the security
that an mde/accde can provide. At least that's some protection. But
who am I to argue with the advice of a consultant?

James A. Fortune
(e-mail address removed)

Tom van Stiphout · Nov 3, 2009

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:21:50 -0500, "James A. Fortune"

Hopefully whoever applied this security did first download, study, and
fully understand the Security FAQ from microsoft.com. As my friend
Larry used to say: 30-some pages, no filler. If you think you can
simply click-click your way through the wizard, alas, it ain't so.

Let's also hope this consultant was careful to block all browser
access to sites that offer password crackers to attack workgroup
security, and was able to extend this to people's home computers,
their libraries, etc.

And let's also hope whoever made this decision will never want to use
the new ACCDB format and will not be penalized in any way by painting
your company in the MDB-only corner.

-Tom.
Microsoft Access MVP

Larry Linson · Nov 3, 2009

Tom van Stiphout said:
Hopefully whoever applied this security did first
download, study, and fully understand the Security
FAQ from microsoft.com.

If I were a bettin' man, Tom, I'd be willing to wager their answer would be,
"What Security FAQ?"

As my friend Larry used to say: 30-some pages, no
filler. If you think you can simply click-click your
way through the wizard, alas, it ain't so.

Thanks for the kind reference. I don't think they've added any filler since

then said:
Let's also hope this consultant was careful to
block all browser access to sites that offer
password crackers to attack workgroup
security, and was able to extend this to people's
home computers, their libraries, etc.

<CHUCKLE> I wouldn't post the site or name here, but there's one where you
don't even need the MDW, and it works on every version up to Access 2003,
and it's free for the downloading. The author, quite a few years ago,
decided there wasn't any money to be made selling code that would crack
security, but was irritated that Microsoft never admitted how simple it is
(simple for him, at any rate) to break Access' security, so just published
it for free.

And let's also hope whoever made this decision
will never want to use the new ACCDB format
and will not be penalized in any way by painting
your company in the MDB-only corner.

And, the more new versions that are released, the "older and more
obsolescent" MDB is going to seem. At least, if you back-end with
SharePoint, you get to use whatever security SharePoint has. I assume that
is, or will be, breakable, too, but there aren't "cracks floating all over
the web, right now, today" for SharePoint security.

It's not that I'd want to say anything bad about a fellow consultant... but
some of them surely could use either an Access consultant of their own, or a
crash course in Microsoft Access.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Office Access MVP

David W. Fenton · Nov 4, 2009

And let's also hope whoever made this decision will never want to
use the new ACCDB format and will not be penalized in any way by
painting your company in the MDB-only corner.

Would someone please explain to me exactly what's so great about the
ACCDB format? And Sharepoint compatibility is not a relevant feature
that makes it "great."

Larry Linson · Nov 5, 2009

David W. Fenton said:
Would someone please explain to me exactly
what's so great about the ACCDB format? And
Sharepoint compatibility is not a relevant
feature that makes it "great."

Not to you and me, maybe, David. (I don't have a client at this time who has
SharePoint.)

But with the demand as high as it seems to be for SharePoint, if Access can
be a good "front end" application for SharePoint, as seems to be the case
with Access 2010, that would make Access "great" to Microsoft.

Larry

David W. Fenton · Nov 5, 2009

Not to you and me, maybe, David. (I don't have a client at this
time who has SharePoint.)

But with the demand as high as it seems to be for SharePoint, if
Access can be a good "front end" application for SharePoint, as
seems to be the case with Access 2010, that would make Access
"great" to Microsoft.

The changes that are in the works for A2010 and the corresponding
Sharepoint version seem to me to be quite compelling.

That has nothing to do with the question, though.

The question is:

What's so great about ACCDB?

That it's more compatible with Sharepoint may be a wonderful thing a
year from now (or whenever A2010 comes out), but I just don't see
anything in the ACCDB format that is helpful in garden-variety
Access apps.

Larry Linson · Nov 5, 2009

David W. Fenton said:
That has nothing to do with the question, though.

The question is:

What's so great about ACCDB?

. . . but I just don't see anything in
the ACCDB format that is helpful in
garden-variety Access apps.

I couldn't say... unless you are fond of using multi-value fields (that
high-pitched whine you hear is Ed Codd, spinning in his grave like a turbine
over the corruption of a more-or-less relational database engine).

I'm sure there are others, but my clients are so turned off by The Ribbon
and what they hear about "intrusive security" that none of them have moved
to Access 2007, so I do not have in-depth experience.

Larry

David W. Fenton · Nov 6, 2009

I couldn't say... unless you are fond of using multi-value fields
(that high-pitched whine you hear is Ed Codd, spinning in his
grave like a turbine over the corruption of a more-or-less
relational database engine).

Multi-value fields would not have been added to ACCDB if not for
Sharepoint compatibility.

I'm sure there are others, but my clients are so turned off by The
Ribbon and what they hear about "intrusive security" that none of
them have moved to Access 2007, so I do not have in-depth
experience.

Well, those are not ACCDB-specific, so I'm still at a lost.

The Attachments field might be useful without Sharepoint, but it,
too, was added for Sharepoint compatibility.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?