Re: NT vs SQ Server Authentication
From: Bob Castleman (nomail_at_here)
Date: 08/26/04
- Next message: Lindac: "newbie question"
- Previous message: Rick Sawtell: "Re: 101"
- In reply to: Tibor Karaszi: "Re: NT vs SQ Server Authentication"
- Next in thread: ChrisR: "NT vs SQ Server Authentication"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:05:57 -0400
BOL says nothing about deprecation. I'm just naturally paranoid about any
feature for which its primary reason for existence is backward compatibilty.
Basically, SQL Server authentication was replaced 5 years ago - a very long
time in the technology biz. It seems to me that the wiser choice is to use
NT authentication for any new development and let SQL authentication hang
around for backwards compatability only.
Bob
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:uXRe3W6iEHA.1644@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > From reading BOL, the primary differences are all related to the
security
> > available through NT. This is all lost when using SQL Server
authentication.
> > Also BOL says SQL authentication is supplied for backwards compatibilty
> > which implies deprecation leading to dropping of the functionality.
Anytime
> > I see backwards compatibility, it makes me nervous.
>
> I have a feeling that BOL is "overstating" the deprecation risk. I doubt
that SQL Server logins will be
> removed in the near future. Just think of a typical Web Server scenario.
where the web server is in DMZ and
> SQL Server inside both firewalls. Here, you typically login using a SQL
Server login from the web server to
> the SQL Server. Often even the same login for all users. Are you checking
the latest update of BOL? Perhaps MS
> backed off a bit on this after releasing SQL2K, and re-phrased it in later
editions of BOL?
>
>
> > Their contention is that
> > by using hardcoded passwords, there is no chance that a user will screw
up
> > adding users to the domain or user groups and it will save us a few
support
> > calls.
>
> Basically, this is what application roles are there for.
>
>
> > Are their any considerations regarding .NET?
>
> Not that I'm aware of...
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
>
> "Bob Castleman" <nomail@here> wrote in message
news:uVQ4GzuiEHA.3536@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > From reading BOL, the primary differences are all related to the
security
> > available through NT. This is all lost when using SQL Server
authentication.
> > Also BOL says SQL authentication is supplied for backwards compatibilty
> > which implies deprecation leading to dropping of the functionality.
Anytime
> > I see backwards compatibility, it makes me nervous.
> >
> > Our developers have suggested hardcoding passwords into the application.
I
> > think we should stay with NT authentication, but they think it will be
> > easier to perform setup and admin tasks using SQL auth. We have alot of
> > customers using MSDE and they really don't have a clue about backups,
etc.
> > so we need to do these from within our application. Their contention is
that
> > by using hardcoded passwords, there is no chance that a user will screw
up
> > adding users to the domain or user groups and it will save us a few
support
> > calls.
> >
> > Are their any considerations regarding .NET?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in
> > message news:uPrQycuiEHA.2660@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > I prefer Windows authentication.
> > >
> > > With luck I can run SQL Server in "Windows Only" mode. Just the fact
that
> > there exist an account with sysadmin
> > > privileges that everyone know the name of feels a bit uncomfortable to
me.
> > >
> > > Also, for SQL server account, you have yet another password to
remember.
> > And, for SQL Server logins, there's
> > > nothing that forces you to change passwords, min length of password
and
> > all these things.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> > >
> > >
> > > "Bob Castleman" <nomail@here> wrote in message
> > news:OerfYZuiEHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > Are there any compelling reasons to use one over the other?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Bob Castleman
> > > > SuccessWare SoftWare
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: Lindac: "newbie question"
- Previous message: Rick Sawtell: "Re: 101"
- In reply to: Tibor Karaszi: "Re: NT vs SQ Server Authentication"
- Next in thread: ChrisR: "NT vs SQ Server Authentication"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
