Owner and permissions

One thing that seems goofy to me is why an owner of a database has to have
explicit permissions set. I guess I don't understand the mindset of the
whole security getup in 2005. If I'm the owner of a car, yeah, well, I
pretty much have unlimited permissions on that car. Why is this different in
SQL Server?Earl
If you are an owner of the database , all objects (with your default
schema) belong to you. More over if you are a member of sysadmin server
role you have FULL permission on the server level. Can you provide an
example you are worried about?
"Earl" <brikshoe@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23CWWTCmyGHA.1304@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> One thing that seems goofy to me is why an owner of a database has to have
> explicit permissions set. I guess I don't understand the mindset of the
> whole security getup in 2005. If I'm the owner of a car, yeah, well, I
> pretty much have unlimited permissions on that car. Why is this different
> in SQL Server?
>|||Ahh, perfect example. Take an SQL2000 database and attach to SQL2005. Try to
open a diagram. You get the infamous message about having to be "a valid
owner" then install the diagram support objects. Well, even with the ONLY
system login set as database owner, I continued to get this message (note
that I also changed the compatibility level to '90' as directed in the
Readme). But I had to change the owner to 'sa' in order to install the
database diagram objects.
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:%23%23PYrRmyGHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Earl
> If you are an owner of the database , all objects (with your default
> schema) belong to you. More over if you are a member of sysadmin server
> role you have FULL permission on the server level. Can you provide an
> example you are worried about?
>
>
> "Earl" <brikshoe@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
> news:%23CWWTCmyGHA.1304@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> One thing that seems goofy to me is why an owner of a database has to
>> have explicit permissions set. I guess I don't understand the mindset of
>> the whole security getup in 2005. If I'm the owner of a car, yeah, well,
>> I pretty much have unlimited permissions on that car. Why is this
>> different in SQL Server?
>|||Earl
No, it is not a perfect one , because it is not permissions issue at all.
You can use diagrams on databases that being created in SQL Server 2005
only
"Earl" <brikshoe@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:OaNyY8oyGHA.476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Ahh, perfect example. Take an SQL2000 database and attach to SQL2005. Try
> to open a diagram. You get the infamous message about having to be "a
> valid owner" then install the diagram support objects. Well, even with the
> ONLY system login set as database owner, I continued to get this message
> (note that I also changed the compatibility level to '90' as directed in
> the Readme). But I had to change the owner to 'sa' in order to install the
> database diagram objects.
>
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:%23%23PYrRmyGHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Earl
>> If you are an owner of the database , all objects (with your default
>> schema) belong to you. More over if you are a member of sysadmin server
>> role you have FULL permission on the server level. Can you provide an
>> example you are worried about?
>>
>>
>> "Earl" <brikshoe@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:%23CWWTCmyGHA.1304@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> One thing that seems goofy to me is why an owner of a database has to
>> have explicit permissions set. I guess I don't understand the mindset of
>> the whole security getup in 2005. If I'm the owner of a car, yeah, well,
>> I pretty much have unlimited permissions on that car. Why is this
>> different in SQL Server?
>>
>