Security in fields

  • Thread starter Thread starter It'sss Johnny
  • Start date Start date
I

It'sss Johnny

Hi all! I have a single table that has about 20 fields and with security
clearance just for me. I would like to create a new form (just for Vicky) so
she can see and update only 4 fields from that table.

I don't want to split my table; so I was thinking of creating a query that
pulls out only those 4 fields for her. Then to apply security to that query
and make it the source for the new data entry form. Is this design possible?
Can Vicky acquire permission to update those fields through the security set
on the query, regardless the security on the table? Hope you get what I
mean. Thanks for your analysis and ideas.
 
It'sss Johnny said:
Hi all! I have a single table that has about 20 fields and with security
clearance just for me. I would like to create a new form (just for Vicky)
so she can see and update only 4 fields from that table.

I don't want to split my table;
Click to expand...

If you're going to have more than 1 concurrent user you should split your
*database*.
so I was thinking of creating a query that pulls out only those 4 fields
for her. Then to apply security to that query and make it the source for
the new data entry form. Is this design possible?
Yes.

Can Vicky acquire permission to update those fields through the security
set on the query, regardless the security on the table?
Click to expand...

Yes, set the query's run permissions to "owner's" and give Vicky read/write
permissions to the *query*. She'll then have the same permissions to the
query data as the owner of the query.

HTH - Keith.
www.keithwilby.com
 
Keith Wilby said:
If you're going to have more than 1 concurrent user you should split your
*database*.


Yes, set the query's run permissions to "owner's" and give Vicky
read/write permissions to the *query*. She'll then have the same
permissions to the query data as the owner of the query.

HTH - Keith.
www.keithwilby.com
Click to expand...

Awesome! Thanks Keith! So Vicky won't be able to access the table directly,
but will be able to access it (just some fields) through the query. Nice!

Just one more thing. I will follow your recommendation on splitting the
database. That makes sense. However I do not want to apply security on the
query (or any objects) stored in the Front-end. I would prefer to maintain
all security sets on the Back-end. However if I do that, I am going to have
to find a way so the Front-end (Vicky's form) reference or feeds from the
query on the Back-end. I guess there is no such thing as a Linked-Query.
What are your thoughts about it? I'm new with this Access security stuff,
but I started to like it ;-)
 
I do not want to apply security on the query (or any objects) stored in
the Front-end.
Click to expand...

But that's the way you do it. You would secure your BE using the same
workgroup as your FE and then there's nothing more to do to the BE, you
control access to the data through security permissions on the FE.
I would prefer to maintain all security sets on the Back-end. However if I
do that, I am going to have to find a way so the Front-end (Vicky's form)
reference or feeds from the query on the Back-end. I guess there is no
such thing as a Linked-Query. What are your thoughts about it? I'm new
with this Access security stuff, but I started to like it ;-)
Click to expand...

Keith.
 
Got it! I have never implemented security on Access, but thanks to your help
I'm on track now. You have been very helpful... Thanks a Billion Keith!!!
 
It'sss Johnny said:
Got it! I have never implemented security on Access, but thanks to your
help I'm on track now. You have been very helpful... Thanks a Billion
Keith!!!
Click to expand...

No problem, glad to help. Don't forget that the FAQ from MS is essential
reading (link on my web site) and to always work on a copy of your files
since it's so easy to lock yourself out.

Regards,
Keith.
www.keithwilby.com
 
Back
Top