limiting browse based on login?

[Bruce Easton]

Mark wrote September 02, 2009 12:23 PM:
> 
> Is it just me, or did Tom Aldridge say:
> > 
> > We own many restaurants, and our managers do everything from cash 
> > control to inventory and ordering to employee database 
> functions and 
> > much more where we want to carefully control what records they have 
> > access to, but then want all the data back in one file for creating 
> > consolidated reports, etc. Works flawlessly day in and day 
> out and the 
> > end users see and know nothing other than "their" stuff.
> 
> If they can ever get access to the shell or to full *clerk, 
> all bets are off, as a qualified file is not "protected".
> 
> Never underestimate the intelligence or resourcefulness of 
> your users.  All it takes is one person with half a brain and 
> a little willpower to bring that crashing down.
> 
> As an example, I don't know if you still have and use 
> WordPerfect, but that had a shell-out capability.  That was 
> one reason a bank downtown was nowhere near as secure as they 
> thought. they "thought" the had shell access eliminated.  
> Wrong.  Well, that and not having a password on the "bin"
> user...something covered in most every administration book back then.
> 
> There are lots of ways to a shell that people don't remember 
> they have exposure from.
> 
> mark->


Mark - how is a qualified file not 'protected' verses an unqualified file?

Bruce

Bruce Easton
STN, Inc.