Re: Looking for opinions...

  • From: Dan Norris <dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: JSweetser@xxxxxxxx, Oracle L <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:56:31 -0800 (PST)

If you're concerned about the group possibly shooting themselves in the foot by 
dropping or altering the tables, you could use system triggers (create trigger 
restrict_drop before drop on schema ...). For the DML privileges, you could 
also trigger on those events and possibly check some of the connectivity and/or 
tool information. For example, if they logged in via SQL*Plus or some other 
direct tool (instead of the application), you could raise an error if they 
tried to delete or update data. While this isn't foolproof since wise users 
know about DBMS_APPLICATION_INFO, it is probably enough to keep things safe 
from non-technical business staff.

Obviously, there are some side effects of triggers that must be considered, but 
you're looking for suggestions...not necessarily good suggestions :).

May the force be with you.

Dan

----- Original Message ----
From: "Sweetser, Joe" <JSweetser@xxxxxxxx>
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 10:37:45 AM
Subject: Looking for opinions...


Situation 
is 
a 
"generic" 
database 
account 
that 
too 
many 
people 
know 
the
password 
to.  
But 
they 
need 
to 
know 
the 
password 
for 
valid 
business
reasons.  
Does 
it 
make 
more 
sense 
to 
limit 
that 
account's 
access 
to 
its'
own 
tables 
or 
create 
a 
new 
account(s) 
and 
grant 
those 
the 
specific
access 
they 
need?  
I 
like 
the 
second 
option 
for 
various  
reasons
(auditability 
(is 
that 
a 
word?) 
and 
accountability 
to 
name 
two) 
but
others 
think 
just 
controlling 
the 
generic 
account's 
access 
to 
objects 
is
fine.  
To 
be 
a 
little 
more 
clear 
(and 
one 
reason 
why 
I 
don't 
like 
the
first 
option), 
there 
would 
be 
different 
privs 
on 
different 
tables 
-
select 
only 
on 
table 
A; 
select, 
insert 
on 
table 
B; 
select, 
update 
on
Table 
C; 
etc).  
Even 
with 
using 
roles, 
something 
just 
sort 
of 
bugs 
me
about 
an 
owner/account 
not 
being 
to 
update 
its' 
own 
data 
(read-only
situation 
exceptions, 
of 
course).

Opinions/comments/suggestions?  
Feel 
free 
to 
send 
back-channel 
and 
I
will 
summarize 
since 
I 
don't 
think 
this 
falls 
under 
a 
technical
umbrella.  
:-)

Thanks,
-joe



Other related posts: