binding SQL server to localhost?

Greetings all,
I am a network security professional rather than a MS SQL admin, so I
apologize in advance if this is a bit of a basic question for this
list. I know an admin setting up a SQL server that will only be
accesible by a webserver running on the same host (not happy about
running private vs publicly avaialable services on the same host , but
it's what we've got). As such, I'd like to recommend to him that the
SQL server only listen on the localhost ip, 127.0.0.1, thereby making
it inaccesible to the outside world. I looked around the MS
knowledgebase but couldn't find a clear document stating how to do
this. Is it even possible? Is there a better option for this
configuration?
Thanks,
BrianYou propably need to firewall the server then.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--
<tinbox@.nyct.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1114053613.247153.87700@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Greetings all,
> I am a network security professional rather than a MS SQL admin, so I
> apologize in advance if this is a bit of a basic question for this
> list. I know an admin setting up a SQL server that will only be
> accesible by a webserver running on the same host (not happy about
> running private vs publicly avaialable services on the same host , but
> it's what we've got). As such, I'd like to recommend to him that the
> SQL server only listen on the localhost ip, 127.0.0.1, thereby making
> it inaccesible to the outside world. I looked around the MS
> knowledgebase but couldn't find a clear document stating how to do
> this. Is it even possible? Is there a better option for this
> configuration?
> Thanks,
> Brian
>

binding SQL server to localhost?

Greetings all,
I am a network security professional rather than a MS SQL admin, so I
apologize in advance if this is a bit of a basic question for this
list. I know an admin setting up a SQL server that will only be
accesible by a webserver running on the same host (not happy about
running private vs publicly avaialable services on the same host , but
it's what we've got). As such, I'd like to recommend to him that the
SQL server only listen on the localhost ip, 127.0.0.1, thereby making
it inaccesible to the outside world. I looked around the MS
knowledgebase but couldn't find a clear document stating how to do
this. Is it even possible? Is there a better option for this
configuration?
Thanks,
Brian
You propably need to firewall the server then.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
<tinbox@.nyct.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1114053613.247153.87700@.o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
> Greetings all,
> I am a network security professional rather than a MS SQL admin, so I
> apologize in advance if this is a bit of a basic question for this
> list. I know an admin setting up a SQL server that will only be
> accesible by a webserver running on the same host (not happy about
> running private vs publicly avaialable services on the same host , but
> it's what we've got). As such, I'd like to recommend to him that the
> SQL server only listen on the localhost ip, 127.0.0.1, thereby making
> it inaccesible to the outside world. I looked around the MS
> knowledgebase but couldn't find a clear document stating how to do
> this. Is it even possible? Is there a better option for this
> configuration?
> Thanks,
> Brian
>

binding SQL server to localhost?

Greetings all,
I am a network security professional rather than a MS SQL admin, so I
apologize in advance if this is a bit of a basic question for this
list. I know an admin setting up a SQL server that will only be
accesible by a webserver running on the same host (not happy about
running private vs publicly avaialable services on the same host , but
it's what we've got). As such, I'd like to recommend to him that the
SQL server only listen on the localhost ip, 127.0.0.1, thereby making
it inaccesible to the outside world. I looked around the MS
knowledgebase but couldn't find a clear document stating how to do
this. Is it even possible? Is there a better option for this
configuration?
Thanks,
BrianYou propably need to firewall the server then.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
--
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--
<tinbox@.nyct.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1114053613.247153.87700@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Greetings all,
> I am a network security professional rather than a MS SQL admin, so I
> apologize in advance if this is a bit of a basic question for this
> list. I know an admin setting up a SQL server that will only be
> accesible by a webserver running on the same host (not happy about
> running private vs publicly avaialable services on the same host , but
> it's what we've got). As such, I'd like to recommend to him that the
> SQL server only listen on the localhost ip, 127.0.0.1, thereby making
> it inaccesible to the outside world. I looked around the MS
> knowledgebase but couldn't find a clear document stating how to do
> this. Is it even possible? Is there a better option for this
> configuration?
> Thanks,
> Brian
>sql

binding SQL server to localhost?

Greetings all,

I am a network security professional rather than a MS SQL admin, so I
apologize in advance if this is a bit of a basic question for this
list. I also cross-posted this to microsoft.public.sqlserver.server,
so sorry if anyone's read it already.

I know an admin setting up a SQL server that will only be
accesible by a webserver running on the same host (not happy about
running private vs publicly avaialable services on the same host , but
it's what we've got). As such, I'd like to recommend to him that the
SQL server only listen on the localhost ip, 127.0.0.1, thereby making
it inaccesible to the outside world. I looked around the MS
knowledgebase but couldn't find a clear document stating how to do
this. Is it even possible? Is there a better option for this
configuration?

It's been suggested that firewalling is the only option, but I'd really
like to do *both* (firewall & bind to localhost). The firewall in this
case will have to be host-based instead (software) instead of hardware
for non-technical reasons, so additionally if anyone recommends a
software firewall they use for this purpose I'd appreciate it. My firs
impulse is to recommend Tiny, but I've never used a software firewall
for an MS SQL/Web server before.

Thanks,
BrianOne option is to disable network access completely, and use only shared
memory for access to MSSQL (this is how MSDE operates by default since
SP3), so only applications running on the same machine will be able to
access it. Although someone could still attack MSSQL by compromising
the web server, or using SQL injection.

MSSQL itself doesn't provide any way to accept connections from
specified hosts - you would normally use the operating system's IP
filtering functions to do that.

Simon|||There isn't a way to have sql server listen on a specific ip. Sorry.

If you haven't already seen this, take a look at the Network
Configuration dialog on the general tab of the server's properties.
Two protocols are enabled by default. TCPIP is one of them, and you
can change the port and set it to ignore discovery broadcasts. That
would make the server invisible to anyone looking for it. However,
anyone who portscans the server would notice whatever port you put it
on and (I'd assume) be able to figure out that it's a SQL Server. So,
you do still need to firewall it.

The other protocol is called Named Pipes. That's basically using
memory to communicate. If the application you're developing supports
it, I'd suggest using this and turning off TCPIP support altogether.
This is probably faster anyway.

Chris

Binary with XML into db using NS/filesystemwatcher?

Have a network share that will routinely get an xml file and a pdf dropped together. The xml file contains metadata about the pdf. Want to insert the various metadata elements in the xml file and the blob'd pdf as a varBinary into a table row as they are dropped.

Would like the Watcher to fire C# code to insert the xml elements and blob the pdf into the table (or can this be set up declaratively?)

Assuming not, best NS architecture to do this?

Thanks, Dan

Sorry, the SQL NS has absolutely nothing to do with this scenario.

Recommendation: use the FileSystemWatcher in a custom Windows Service.

Best way to do a dynamic bulk insert to a table

My current project is creating a social network for the university I work for. One of the features allows members of a group to send a message to all other group members. Currently, I run a foreach loop over each of the group members, and run a separate INSERT statement to insert a message into my messages table. Once the group has several hundreds members, everybody starts getting timeout errors. What is the best way to do this?

Here are two suggestions I've received: construct one sql statement that would contain multiple INSERT statements. It would be a large statement like:

INSERT into [messages] (from_user, to_user, subject, body) VALUES (@.from_user, @.to_user, @.subject, @.body); INSERT into [messages] (from_user, to_user, subject, body) VALUES (@.from_user2, @.to_user2, @.subject2, @.body2); INSERT into [messages] (from_user, to_user, subject, body) VALUES (@.from_user3, @.to_user3, @.subject3, @.body3);

etc...

Or, do the foreach loop in a stored procedure. I know the pros and cons of sprocs versus dynamic sql is a sticky subject, and, personally, I'd prefer to keep my logic in the C# code-behind file. What is the best way to do this is an efficient manner? I'd be happy to share some code, if that would help. Thanks for your input!

I think what you want is something like this. 1 single query.

INSERT into [messages] (from_user, to_user, subject, body)
SELECT @.from_user,userid,@.subject,@.body FROM groupmembers WHERE groupid=@.groupid AND userid<>@.from_user

Your input parameters:

@.from_user = the sending user
@.subject = the subject
@.body = the body
@.groupid=the recieving groupid

|||

If you going to insert data to a table that alreay has some data, I suggest you to use whatgunteman wrote.

If not, I suggest you to use:

1SELECT *2INTO MyNewTable-- it will be created automatically here3FROM MyTable1 t14INNERJOIN5 MyTable2 t26ON (t1.rid = t2.rid)7

Good luck.

|||

Thanks that worked like a charm. I can't believe I never thought of putting a subquery in an insert statement.