SQL Server 2017 as a service! How to DO?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I have a doubt / situation and would like to know if there is a solution and if you could help me!



I have in my environment some clients that buy a SQL Server database as a service, as if it were an Azure or AWS instance, where they do not have access to the server, only a user and password in the instance and I need to hide from those users the server configurations that are accessible through SQL Server Management Studio or commands, for example: Memory allocated to the instance and CPUs.



In SQL Server 2016 I get this result by removing the permission on the view: "master..xp_msver". Without this permission they can not, for example, see instance properties (right click) and some data from the Facets form. Even without this permission they log on, and doing everything they need in their databases.



BUT in SQL Server 2017 this does not work, if deny permission from this view is no longer possible to log in SQL Server...



I know it may not be correct to use the standard SQL Server as a service, maybe it has not been prepared for this, but is there a right way? or which alternative can be used ??



I've spent a lot of time on google trying to find alternatives but for SQL Server 2017 I did not find anything that hide the server settings.



Note: My users use Management Studio...






sql-server sql-server-2017







share|improve this question









New contributor




Vecchiato is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1




    please note, sql is not the same as sql-server
    – Max Vernon
    4 hours ago
















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I have a doubt / situation and would like to know if there is a solution and if you could help me!



I have in my environment some clients that buy a SQL Server database as a service, as if it were an Azure or AWS instance, where they do not have access to the server, only a user and password in the instance and I need to hide from those users the server configurations that are accessible through SQL Server Management Studio or commands, for example: Memory allocated to the instance and CPUs.



In SQL Server 2016 I get this result by removing the permission on the view: "master..xp_msver". Without this permission they can not, for example, see instance properties (right click) and some data from the Facets form. Even without this permission they log on, and doing everything they need in their databases.



BUT in SQL Server 2017 this does not work, if deny permission from this view is no longer possible to log in SQL Server...



I know it may not be correct to use the standard SQL Server as a service, maybe it has not been prepared for this, but is there a right way? or which alternative can be used ??



I've spent a lot of time on google trying to find alternatives but for SQL Server 2017 I did not find anything that hide the server settings.



Note: My users use Management Studio...






sql-server sql-server-2017







share|improve this question









New contributor




Vecchiato is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1




    please note, sql is not the same as sql-server
    – Max Vernon
    4 hours ago












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











I have a doubt / situation and would like to know if there is a solution and if you could help me!



I have in my environment some clients that buy a SQL Server database as a service, as if it were an Azure or AWS instance, where they do not have access to the server, only a user and password in the instance and I need to hide from those users the server configurations that are accessible through SQL Server Management Studio or commands, for example: Memory allocated to the instance and CPUs.



In SQL Server 2016 I get this result by removing the permission on the view: "master..xp_msver". Without this permission they can not, for example, see instance properties (right click) and some data from the Facets form. Even without this permission they log on, and doing everything they need in their databases.



BUT in SQL Server 2017 this does not work, if deny permission from this view is no longer possible to log in SQL Server...



I know it may not be correct to use the standard SQL Server as a service, maybe it has not been prepared for this, but is there a right way? or which alternative can be used ??



I've spent a lot of time on google trying to find alternatives but for SQL Server 2017 I did not find anything that hide the server settings.



Note: My users use Management Studio...






sql-server sql-server-2017







share|improve this question









New contributor




Vecchiato is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I have a doubt / situation and would like to know if there is a solution and if you could help me!



I have in my environment some clients that buy a SQL Server database as a service, as if it were an Azure or AWS instance, where they do not have access to the server, only a user and password in the instance and I need to hide from those users the server configurations that are accessible through SQL Server Management Studio or commands, for example: Memory allocated to the instance and CPUs.



In SQL Server 2016 I get this result by removing the permission on the view: "master..xp_msver". Without this permission they can not, for example, see instance properties (right click) and some data from the Facets form. Even without this permission they log on, and doing everything they need in their databases.



BUT in SQL Server 2017 this does not work, if deny permission from this view is no longer possible to log in SQL Server...



I know it may not be correct to use the standard SQL Server as a service, maybe it has not been prepared for this, but is there a right way? or which alternative can be used ??



I've spent a lot of time on google trying to find alternatives but for SQL Server 2017 I did not find anything that hide the server settings.



Note: My users use Management Studio...






sql-server sql-server-2017




sql-server sql-server-2017






share|improve this question









New contributor




Vecchiato is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Vecchiato is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago









a_horse_with_no_name

36k769108




36k769108






New contributor




Vecchiato is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









Vecchiato

62




62




New contributor




Vecchiato is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Vecchiato is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Vecchiato is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 1




    please note, sql is not the same as sql-server
    – Max Vernon
    4 hours ago












  • 1




    please note, sql is not the same as sql-server
    – Max Vernon
    4 hours ago







1




1




please note, sql is not the same as sql-server
– Max Vernon
4 hours ago




please note, sql is not the same as sql-server
– Max Vernon
4 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













Revoking that one view was never a good way to protect your instance. The most straightforward way to do this is to make the user the owner of their database, but have no other rights on the instance, even to list the other databases. EG:



use master 
create database a 
create login a_user with password='P@sssword*****'
alter authorization on database::a to a_user

revoke view any database to public


Now a_user will be able to connect (with SSMS or otherwise) and will see only one database.






share|improve this answer




















    Your Answer







    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "182"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );






    Vecchiato is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f217965%2fsql-server-2017-as-a-service-how-to-do%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest

















    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    4
    down vote













    Revoking that one view was never a good way to protect your instance. The most straightforward way to do this is to make the user the owner of their database, but have no other rights on the instance, even to list the other databases. EG:



    use master 
    create database a 
    create login a_user with password='P@sssword*****'
    alter authorization on database::a to a_user

    revoke view any database to public


    Now a_user will be able to connect (with SSMS or otherwise) and will see only one database.






    share|improve this answer
























      up vote
      4
      down vote













      Revoking that one view was never a good way to protect your instance. The most straightforward way to do this is to make the user the owner of their database, but have no other rights on the instance, even to list the other databases. EG:



      use master 
      create database a 
      create login a_user with password='P@sssword*****'
      alter authorization on database::a to a_user

      revoke view any database to public


      Now a_user will be able to connect (with SSMS or otherwise) and will see only one database.






      share|improve this answer






















        up vote
        4
        down vote










        up vote
        4
        down vote









        Revoking that one view was never a good way to protect your instance. The most straightforward way to do this is to make the user the owner of their database, but have no other rights on the instance, even to list the other databases. EG:



        use master 
        create database a 
        create login a_user with password='P@sssword*****'
        alter authorization on database::a to a_user

        revoke view any database to public


        Now a_user will be able to connect (with SSMS or otherwise) and will see only one database.






        share|improve this answer












        Revoking that one view was never a good way to protect your instance. The most straightforward way to do this is to make the user the owner of their database, but have no other rights on the instance, even to list the other databases. EG:



        use master 
        create database a 
        create login a_user with password='P@sssword*****'
        alter authorization on database::a to a_user

        revoke view any database to public


        Now a_user will be able to connect (with SSMS or otherwise) and will see only one database.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 4 hours ago









        David Browne - Microsoft

        8,334622




        8,334622




















            Vecchiato is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            Vecchiato is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Vecchiato is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            Vecchiato is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f217965%2fsql-server-2017-as-a-service-how-to-do%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest
































































            Comments

            Post a Comment

            Popular posts from this blog

            Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

            Image
            Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 31 down vote favorite 4 I hold a PhD in mechanical engineering with a 7 year background in self-guided, self-paced research including 2 years as a graduate level course instructor and a subject matter expert for various engineering projects in a university setting in the United States. For the last 10-11 months, I am working in a research industry in France where my task is to debug C++ spaghetti code written over a period of several years by my current supervisor. It is a team of 2: just I and my supervisor. Diurnally, I am posed with a "bug of the day" to get out of this C++ code. My supervisor generally gives me about 15-30 minutes to solve it and then accosts me about whether or not the task is completed and then rinses and repeats this until the end of the day. Off-late, my supervisor has been holding 6-7 hour long "meetin
            Read more

            Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

            Image
            Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite Many fantasy worlds have multiple humanoid species (elves, orcs, humans, etc) living in the same world, in addition to that, they often have the ability to interbreed. And I can't help but question their believability... fantasy-races reproduction interspecies-relations share | improve this question edited Aug 9 at 14:46 Michael Kjörling ♦ 21.1k 10 85 161 asked Aug 9 at 13:13 Chlodio 118 6 closed as unclear what you're asking by MichaelK, Gryphon, John, Vincent, Frostfyre Aug 9 at 15:25 Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. 3 Stack Exchange exist to
            Read more

            Confectionery

            Image
            Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of
            Read more