|
security
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Windows permissions problem: cannot lock fileI have a secured, split database. Works fine on my computer. I have
Admin permissions both with Access DB and with Windows. Took the database to the user. Same setup. User has "PowerUser" permissions. Got a "cannot lock file" error message. Only when the user got full Windows Admin rights, would things work.Is there a way to get things to work without full Windows Admin rights? Using Access 2003, Windows XP, Novell network. Only 1 user was trying to use the database. The database was not at the root of the drive. The network is shared. The database is 5 levels down in the UNC path. Thanks for all your help. Nadine Hi, Nadine.
> User has "PowerUser" The Windows Administrator lied to you. This user has "Crippled User" > permissions. permissions. > Got a "cannot lock file" error message. That's because the user doesn't have create or modify permissions on the files in that directory. Access needs to create an LDB (locking database) file or else set the exclusive lock in the MDB file, but your user can't write to either of those files without the proper permissions. > Is there a way The quickest and easiest method is to give Full Control Windows security > to get things to work without full Windows Admin rights? permissions on the directory, but your Windows Administrator is likely to die of a heart attack after he screams, "That's not secure!!!" Your Access users need read, write, create, modify, and delete permissions on that directory. They don't need "List folder contents," but that permission comes in handy when you think about it. (Without it, users can't see the files in the directory or check their permissions, but they can still exercise any other allowed permissions, such as reading and writing files.) And they don't need to create and delete subdirectories and set the permissions for the current directory and those subdirectories, but even those advanced permssions come in handy, particularly when the Windows Administrator can't get it right the first three or four times. That's all the permissions that "Full Control" gives the user that the Windows Administrator is screaming is not secure. HTH. Gunny See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs. See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials. Blogs: www.DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com, www.DatabaseTips.BlogSpot.com http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact info. "'69 Camaro" <ForwardZERO_SPAM.To.69Camaro@Spameater.orgZERO_SPAM> No, they don't need DELETE permissions. They do need all the others.wrote in news:O32qNsV#HHA.4184@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl: > Your Access users need read, write, create, modify, and delete > permissions on that directory. Hi, David.
>> Your Access users need read, write, create, modify, and delete Would you like to have paid $10 to $100 less in U.S. federal taxes every >> permissions on that directory. > > No, they don't need DELETE permissions. They do need all the others. year for at least the previous ten years (and every year in the future)? You could have, and every other U.S. taxpayer could have, too, but we didn't. The reason we didn't is because of the expensive (and all too common) work stoppages at U.S. government contractors who are using Access database applications where the users don't have delete permissions on the directory. I know of quite a few Access database applications where each one to three hour work stoppage costs $10,000 to $20,000+ while the users wait for a manager or a Windows administrator to come and delete the .LDB file for them so that they can open the database again to do their jobs. Only the managers have delete permissions, but unfortunately, the managers never use the applications, and they are never around to delete the .LDB file when needed. I'd say that's an expensive policy, wouldn't you? Since it's so easy to give the users delete permissions to avoid such costly work stoppages, the punishment of $10 to $100 for every taxpayer every year for the luxury of preventing accidental deletions of the MDB files by a few computer users doesn't seem worth it. I hate paying that needless premium, so I always advocate giving delete permissions to the users. Non-government organizations are paying the costs for work stoppages as well, and customers absorb those costs. As a customer, I'd rather not pay those costs, either. When was the last time you accidentally deleted an Access database file and wished you hadn't been given delete permissions on that directory as the only solution to the problem? Never? You -- and the rest of us -- have alternative solutions to accidental deletions, rather than prohibiting delete permissions. HTH. Gunny See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs. See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials. Blogs: www.DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com, www.DatabaseTips.BlogSpot.com http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact info. Show quote
"'69 Camaro" <ForwardZERO_SPAM.To.69Camaro@Spameater.orgZERO_SPAM> That's bad management, and the solution is not to provide users withwrote in news:#eu7wf3#HHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl: >>> Your Access users need read, write, create, modify, and delete >>> permissions on that directory. >> >> No, they don't need DELETE permissions. They do need all the >> others. > > Would you like to have paid $10 to $100 less in U.S. federal taxes > every year for at least the previous ten years (and every year in > the future)? You could have, and every other U.S. taxpayer could > have, too, but we didn't. The reason we didn't is because of the > expensive (and all too common) work stoppages at U.S. government > contractors who are using Access database applications where the > users don't have delete permissions on the directory. I know of > quite a few Access database applications where each one to three > hour work stoppage costs $10,000 to $20,000+ while the users wait > for a manager or a Windows administrator to come and delete the > .LDB file for them so that they can open the database again to do > their jobs. Only the managers have delete permissions, but > unfortunately, the managers never use the applications, and they > are never around to delete the .LDB file when needed. DELETE permission, but to fix the management problem. > I'd say that's an expensive policy, wouldn't you? I think you're pulling it out of your ass. I've got an app that'sbeen running since 1998 on servers with no delete permission (5-15 simultaneous users), and it's never caused any problems itself. Now, there have been cases where the LDB file needed to be manually deleted, but that was not caused by not giving users delete permission, but by other issues entirely. > Since it's so easy to But then you expose the data file to the possibility of accidental> give the users delete permissions to avoid such costly work > stoppages, the punishment of $10 to $100 for every taxpayer every > year for the luxury of preventing accidental deletions of the MDB > files by a few computer users doesn't seem worth it. I hate > paying that needless premium, so I always advocate giving delete > permissions to the users. Non-government organizations are paying > the costs for work stoppages as well, and customers absorb those > costs. As a customer, I'd rather not pay those costs, either. deletion. Given that I'm experienced in running this kind of scenario and have never seen any problems from it, it seems to me that it is without cost. > When was the last time you accidentally deleted an Access database Well, I respectfully disagree.> file and wished you hadn't been given delete permissions on that > directory as the only solution to the problem? Never? You -- and > the rest of us -- have alternative solutions to accidental > deletions, rather than prohibiting delete permissions. And you are discussing something different -- you said categorically that DELETE permission was required. I said it wasn't. Now you're arguing not that it is required, only that it is desirable. On that we disagree. On whether or not it is required, you would be wrong to claim that it is. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||