Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase 12»»

Disable & Rename 'SA' Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Tuesday, March 5, 2013 7:51 AM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, September 29, 2014 11:03 PM
Points: 31, Visits: 293
Hi All,

Our SQL risk assessment determined that 'sa' should be renamed and disabled. As a fallback readiness, i gathered all objects owned by 'sa', but noted some system packages such as : PerfCountersCollect, PerfCountersUpload, QueryActivityCollect,SqlTraceCollect, TSQLQueryUpload, SqlTraceUpload. Any impact ananticipated post 'sa rename & disable on existing SQL2K8 R2 instances, or during SP1 to SP2 upgrade.

A good workwork-around was posted earlier for SQL2K5 (http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic560965-391-1.aspx) , but not sure if same applies to SQL2K8 R2.

Thanks

Othman.





























Post #1426840
Posted Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:48 PM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:23 PM
Points: 7,135, Visits: 12,743
Disabling sa should be enough. I would forego the rename.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community. --Plato
Post #1427174
Posted Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:25 AM


SSC-Forever

SSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-Forever

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 2:01 PM
Points: 40,390, Visits: 36,823
I would also not rename the account.

Renaming it makes the account harder for hackers to locate and try to crack, but if the account's disabled there's no way to log in with it and hence it doesn't matter what the name is. Also there have been upgrade problems in the past with a renamed account. I would hope MS has learnt better, but I won't bet on it.



Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Post #1427204
Posted Wednesday, March 6, 2013 4:17 AM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, September 29, 2014 11:03 PM
Points: 31, Visits: 293
Thanks Gail & opc for your reply.


Post #1427292
Posted Wednesday, March 20, 2013 3:51 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, November 15, 2014 12:45 AM
Points: 328, Visits: 544
Additionally, and where possible, I would leave the database with Integrated Security only. I know of very few instances where there is an absolute need to have an SQL Server Login ability. By having all your database user and group management controlled through Active Directory there is absolutely no chance of a SQL Server login being compromised.
Post #1433100
Posted Wednesday, March 20, 2013 7:41 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:23 PM
Points: 7,135, Visits: 12,743
kevaburg (3/20/2013)
Additionally, and where possible, I would leave the database with Integrated Security only. I know of very few instances where there is an absolute need to have an SQL Server Login ability. By having all your database user and group management controlled through Active Directory there is absolutely no chance of a SQL Server login being compromised.

That is the exqct opposite to my experience. In fact, having contributed in some really large corporate Enterprises as well as some one-instance shops, and lots in between, I can count on one hand the number instances not running in mixed-mode.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________
There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community. --Plato
Post #1433209
Posted Wednesday, March 20, 2013 7:53 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, November 15, 2014 12:45 AM
Points: 328, Visits: 544
The focus for my answer was actually based around the phrase "the absolute need to have SQL Server Logins". Are they truly necessary? In the vast majority of cases I have worked on, an AD-based account was quite capable of doing the job of the SQL Server account. Where it wasn't capable of replacing it, it was only because the software had been hard-coded NOT to accept AD credentials.

One of my first questions to vendors is whether or not an SQL Server login is necessary. If so, why? Normally the answer is one that offers me the ability to create an equivalent AD-based login. An unfortunate fact as well is that a lot of vendors tend to understand their software and their own underlying database but not the server on which it runs and the security models available.

So in answer to my own question "are SQL Server Logins truly necessary"? I would say very rarely.
Post #1433224
Posted Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:07 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:23 PM
Points: 7,135, Visits: 12,743
That's fair, and you're right to challenge that point in an attempt to keep instances out of mixed-mode, I do the same. The reality is that it just takes one legacy app, or one client that cannot support Windows Auth, to cause it to be enabled.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community. --Plato
Post #1433239
Posted Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:50 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, November 15, 2014 12:45 AM
Points: 328, Visits: 544
And that is my argument for at least two instances on each database server.....one with and one without! :)
Post #1433272
Posted Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:25 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:23 PM
Points: 7,135, Visits: 12,743
kevaburg (3/20/2013)
And that is my argument for at least two instances on each database server.....one with and one without! :)

Yikes! You must print money over there...can you send me some I won;t say never, but I cannot imagine a scenario when I would argue that needing mixed-mode should provoke spinning up a new instance to isolate those databases that have clients that require it. I am thinking memory management becomes harder and less efficient, licensing costs go up, maintenance costs go up for applying SPs and CUs, and you still have an instance with SQL Logins so what do you get in return? I would love to hear your reasoning behind such a position.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________
There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community. --Plato
Post #1433333
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 12»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse