Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

how can i remove the startup warning of access

Discussion in 'Information Technology' started by jetro=), Jul 28, 2006.

  1. jetro=)

    jetro=)
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    everytime i open my database there is always a security warning, warning me
    that the macros may be harmful, but it is my own macro how can i remove it ???
     
  2. Loading...


  3. George

    George
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Assuming that you have Office 2003, try:
    Tools - Macros - Security and select Low

    George

    Ο χÏήστης "jetro=)" έγγÏαψε:

    > everytime i open my database there is always a security warning, warning me
    > that the macros may be harmful, but it is my own macro how can i remove it ???
     
  4. Jamie Collins

    Jamie Collins
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    George wrote:
    > > everytime i open my database there is always a security warning, warning me
    > > that the macros may be harmful, but it is my own macro how can i remove it ???

    >
    > Assuming that you have Office 2003, try:
    > Tools - Macros - Security and select Low


    I think that advising users to lower their security settings is
    irresponsible.

    I would advise the OP to retain the medium security setting and
    self-sign the VBA project:

    http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/assistance/HP010446111033.aspx

    Jamie.

    --
     
  5. Rick Brandt

    Rick Brandt
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Jamie Collins wrote:
    > George wrote:
    > > > everytime i open my database there is always a security warning,
    > > > warning me that the macros may be harmful, but it is my own macro
    > > > how can i remove it ???

    > >
    > > Assuming that you have Office 2003, try:
    > > Tools - Macros - Security and select Low

    >
    > I think that advising users to lower their security settings is
    > irresponsible. [snip]


    Why? All it does is make Access 2003 work the same way every other version of
    Access has ever worked.


    --
    Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
    Email (as appropriate) to...
    RBrandt at Hunter dot com
     
  6. Jamie Collins

    Jamie Collins
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Rick Brandt wrote:
    > > I think that advising users to lower their security settings is
    > > irresponsible.

    >
    > Why? All it does is make Access 2003 work the same way every other version of
    > Access has ever worked.


    ALTER DATABASE PASSWORD NULL administrator;
    GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES ON [all my objects] TO [all my users];

    Use MEMO for all your table columns (Why? All it does is make Access
    2003 work the same way every version of Excel has ever worked.)

    If you want to prop open a fire door, there's usually a fire
    extinguisher near by.

    Sensible answer: caution required when disabling safety features.

    George gave no caution. A simple workaround is available without
    modifying security settings. Isn't that better advice, Rick?

    Maybe Access 2003 was made more secure for a reason?

    Jamie.

    --
     
  7. zealoty

    zealoty
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

  8. Rick Brandt

    Rick Brandt
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Jamie Collins wrote:
    [snip]
    > Maybe Access 2003 was made more secure for a reason?
    >
    > Jamie.


    Marketing and the lawyers made this decision. Have you EVER seen a user
    encounter those warnings without saying "yes" to all of them? Given that
    the user will virtually always bypass the messages then what purpose do they
    serve? They are an annoyance only.

    If the messages were only displayed when opening files located on a
    non-trusted site then they would make sense. To have them appear for every
    file opened is just stupid.


    --
    Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
    Email (as appropriate) to...
    RBrandt at Hunter dot com
     
  9. jetro=)

    jetro=)
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    is that warning something to do with our linux server?
     
  10. George

    George
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I was just trying to help somebody in here. I got a lot of answers from this
    group and I appreciate a lot the professionals' answers.

    From my experience (although I don't consider myself a professional Access
    Developer) I have never seen any user to use this warning message to block
    macros etc, they and my self always ignore it.

    But, finally if there is any reason of not setting the Security level to Low
    can anybody tell me?

    Thanks

    Ο χÏήστης "Rick Brandt" έγγÏαψε:

    > Jamie Collins wrote:
    > [snip]
    > > Maybe Access 2003 was made more secure for a reason?
    > >
    > > Jamie.

    >
    > Marketing and the lawyers made this decision. Have you EVER seen a user
    > encounter those warnings without saying "yes" to all of them? Given that
    > the user will virtually always bypass the messages then what purpose do they
    > serve? They are an annoyance only.
    >
    > If the messages were only displayed when opening files located on a
    > non-trusted site then they would make sense. To have them appear for every
    > file opened is just stupid.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
    > Email (as appropriate) to...
    > RBrandt at Hunter dot com
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
  11. Jamie Collins

    Jamie Collins
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Rick Brandt wrote:
    > Have you EVER seen a user
    > encounter those warnings without saying "yes" to all of them?


    Yes, me. I'm not very trusting <g>.

    > To have them appear for every
    > file opened is just stupid.


    Not every file e.g. one signed with a digital certificate and has been
    'trusted'.

    How much does a digital certificate cost, 100 USD? Now that's good,
    cheap marketing ;-)

    Jamie.

    --
     
  12. '69 Camaro

    '69 Camaro
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi.

    > is that warning something to do with our linux server?


    No. The default setting for Access Macro Security is medium, so unless you
    change this setting or authenticate your own files with a digital signature,
    you'll get the warning when you attempt to open the file.

    But please tell me you're _not_ storing the Access database file on a Linux
    server.

    HTH.
    Gunny

    See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    info.


    "jetro=)" <jetro@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:14D5D411-BD68-40D9-A2E9-0F96FDC709DD@microsoft.com...
    > is that warning something to do with our linux server?
     
  13. '69 Camaro

    '69 Camaro
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi, Jamie.

    >> > I think that advising users to lower their security settings is
    >> > irresponsible.

    <SNIP>
    > ALTER DATABASE PASSWORD NULL administrator;
    > GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES ON [all my objects] TO [all my users];


    Are you trying to say that George is advocating opening the door for
    everyone into the database? If so, may I remind you that, by default,
    there's no database password set on Access databases, a state that most
    Access databases remain in? And even when they don't, there are free tools
    available (or for a small price if one doesn't know where to look) that will
    reveal the database password, so trying to secure the database with a
    database password will keep only the most basic computer novices out of the
    database.

    May I also remind you that, by default, User-level Security is set so that
    the Admin user is the owner of the database and all objects, and everyone
    who opens the database _is_ the Admin user? So everyone who opens the
    database has all priviledges on all objects, anyway. This is a state that
    most Access databases remain in, even when User-level security is attempted,
    because most people do it incorrectly the first few times.

    In other words, the Access security door is almost always open, or can
    easily be opened, so criticizing George for his "open door policy" serves no
    purpose.

    > Maybe Access 2003 was made more secure for a reason?


    If you think Access 2003 is more secure than earlier versions, then you are
    mistaken. The Macro Security doesn't detect viruses, so it doesn't keep
    one's computer "safe." The Macro Security warning gets ignored every time
    an Access user opens a database when the setting is set to Medium. And when
    it's set to High, the user can't open it unless it's digitally signed with a
    certificate issued by a formal Certificate Authority, an expense most
    organizations avoid. So if the Access user needs the database to do his
    job, he either opens it with an earlier version of Access or he ends up
    changing the Macro Security setting to a lower one in order to open the
    database -- and ignores the warnings.

    And what the Macro Security checks is whether there's VBA code and whether
    there's certain expressions used in queries or in object properties, not
    whether or not the file contains malicious code or expressions. It's like
    throwing the baby out with the bath water, and since the Macro Security
    can't discern between good and bad and doesn't even detect viruses, its
    warnings get ignored.

    Which is why Access 2003 is more annoying, but no more secure than earlier
    versions of Access which lack this Macro Security "feature." And it's why
    Microsoft changed this feature in Access 2007 so that there's a safe zone
    that the Access user can set where all Access databases located there will
    be trusted, thereby giving the user control over which files are safe (his
    own) and which files should be eyed with suspicion (others', especially
    those from outside of the organization) -- and allowing the Access user to
    consider the Macro Security warning as it was intended -- if he hasn't
    already been desensitized by the little boy crying wolf so often in Access
    2003.

    HTH.
    Gunny

    See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    info.


    "Jamie Collins" <jamiecollins@xsmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1148995555.323508.299630@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Rick Brandt wrote:
    >> > I think that advising users to lower their security settings is
    >> > irresponsible.

    >>
    >> Why? All it does is make Access 2003 work the same way every other
    >> version of
    >> Access has ever worked.

    >
    > ALTER DATABASE PASSWORD NULL administrator;
    > GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES ON [all my objects] TO [all my users];
    >
    > Use MEMO for all your table columns (Why? All it does is make Access
    > 2003 work the same way every version of Excel has ever worked.)
    >
    > If you want to prop open a fire door, there's usually a fire
    > extinguisher near by.
    >
    > Sensible answer: caution required when disabling safety features.
    >
    > George gave no caution. A simple workaround is available without
    > modifying security settings. Isn't that better advice, Rick?
    >
    > Maybe Access 2003 was made more secure for a reason?
    >
    > Jamie.
    >
    > --
    >
     
  14. '69 Camaro

    '69 Camaro
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi, George.

    > I was just trying to help somebody in here.


    Please continue to do so. Plenty of people need plenty of help with Access.
    Jamie Collins enjoys making himself feel superior to others, so take what he
    says with a grain of salt. Many of the regular posters have placed him in
    their kill files. While you can't do that with your Web newsreader, you can
    just skip reading his posts whenever you see his name. FYI, he also goes by
    other names, such as onedaywhen and peregenem.

    > But, finally if there is any reason of not setting the Security level to
    > Low
    > can anybody tell me?


    It's difficult to think of such a scenario, but perhaps Jamie can answer
    this question better than I can, since he believes the setting should never
    be low. He must have been been bitten by a malicious Access database when
    he had it on low if he's an advocate of Access's Macro Security, although
    I've never heard of any reports of such an Access database.

    Leave the Macro Security setting on low when working with your own files,
    but when you go on the Internet to download someone else's database example,
    put your Macro Security setting on medium before attempting to open the
    file. Of course, you'd scan the file first with your anti-virus software to
    determine whether there is a virus embedded in the file. Then attempt to
    open the file. If the Macro Security warning tells you it may be harmful,
    don't open it -- yet. This just tells you that the file either contains an
    expression that Jet can block (such as "Quit" to close applications, or an
    action query that might delete or change the data) or contains any VBA code.
    And any Access database file worth anything has at least some VBA code in
    it, so you'll almost always get the warning. Enable the AllowBypass key on
    the file and then hold the <SHIFT> key down while opening the database so
    that the startup code doesn't run, then investigate whether there actually
    is any harmful VBA code or expressions. In almost all cases, the
    expressions or code that may be deemed harmful by Jet are legitimate and
    intentionally placed there by the Access developer to aid in the
    functionality of the database application.

    HTH.
    Gunny

    See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    info.


    "George" <George@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:E26751E5-3F9E-49C1-8BDD-7E32D745E3E1@microsoft.com...
    >I was just trying to help somebody in here. I got a lot of answers from
    >this
    > group and I appreciate a lot the professionals' answers.
    >
    > From my experience (although I don't consider myself a professional Access
    > Developer) I have never seen any user to use this warning message to block
    > macros etc, they and my self always ignore it.
    >
    > But, finally if there is any reason of not setting the Security level to
    > Low
    > can anybody tell me?
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > ? ??????? "Rick Brandt" ???????:
    >
    >> Jamie Collins wrote:
    >> [snip]
    >> > Maybe Access 2003 was made more secure for a reason?
    >> >
    >> > Jamie.

    >>
    >> Marketing and the lawyers made this decision. Have you EVER seen a user
    >> encounter those warnings without saying "yes" to all of them? Given that
    >> the user will virtually always bypass the messages then what purpose do
    >> they
    >> serve? They are an annoyance only.
    >>
    >> If the messages were only displayed when opening files located on a
    >> non-trusted site then they would make sense. To have them appear for
    >> every
    >> file opened is just stupid.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
    >> Email (as appropriate) to...
    >> RBrandt at Hunter dot com
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
     
  15. Jamie Collins

    Jamie Collins
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    '69 Camaro wrote:
    > > ALTER DATABASE PASSWORD NULL administrator;
    > > GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES ON [all my objects] TO [all my users];

    >
    > Are you trying to say <snip>


    Oops! You've responded to the non-serious (first half) of my post.
    Apologies if the fact I was being flippant wasn't explicit enough.

    > > Maybe Access 2003 was made more secure for a reason?

    >
    > If you think Access 2003 is more secure than earlier versions, then you are
    > mistaken.


    >From what you've written, I accept that. The strange thing is, when I

    typed my reply it said:

    "Maybe Access 2003 was made more secure for a reason? I really don't
    know."

    I must have omitted to copy+paste the last sentence.

    My general point was, "Elicit caution when advising to remove safety
    features." I now want to add, "If the specific safety feature you are
    advising to remove you know to be meaningless then please tell us why
    that is."

    Thanks for taking the time to provide the detail that the original
    reply lacked.

    Jamie.

    --
     
  16. Jamie Collins

    Jamie Collins
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    '69 Camaro wrote:
    > Jamie Collins enjoys making himself feel superior to others


    If I self-sign my project, rather than put myself at risk (however
    small), am I making myself feel superior or am I trying to be vigilant?
    (note: rhetorical question)

    If I model eight character fixed width text that looks like an integer
    as eight character fixed width text with a pattern matching check
    constraint, rather than as integer and just hope no one puts a
    negative/nine digit number in there, am making myself feel superior or
    am I trying to do the best I possibly can as regards data integrity?
    (note: rhetorical question)

    If I add a check constraint to a column at the engine level to disallow
    zero-length strings, rather than trusting the front end application to
    filter out zero-length strings, am making myself feel superior or am I
    trying to do the best I possibly can in terms of data integrity? (note:
    rhetorical question)

    If I code my validation rules/check constraints to handle both
    'flavours' of wildcard character, am making myself feel superior or am
    I trying to make my database accessible to more users in the
    enterprise? (note: rhetorical question)

    > Many of the regular posters have placed him in
    > their kill files.


    Do these regular posters not want to hear that they could be trying
    harder in terms of data integrity, to make databases accessible to more
    users in the enterprise, to be more vigilant as regards security, to
    try new ideas from outside their ghetto, etc? I really don't know.

    > take what he
    > says with a grain of salt


    That's good advice and applies to all, including MSDN articles. The
    great thing about a discussion is that we see more than one idea, from
    which the reader can select the most conducive (I'm avoiding words such
    'best' and 'superior'). I feel that Killfile and suggesting that
    reasonable input is ignored does not aid this process.

    Could there be vested interests e.g. new
    approaches/discoveries/refutation of popular fallacies being a threat
    to reputations/egos/website maintenance, points scoring being based on
    quantity of answers rather than quality of solutions, etc? I really
    don't know.
    I have no reputation, no (public) ego, no website and (believe it or
    believe it not) no superiority complex. I ask, 'Is that factually
    correct and well reasoned advice?' and take it from there.

    Jamie.

    --
     
  17. Larry Linson

    Larry Linson
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Sorry, Jamie, Gunny's advice was correct:

    (1) You can safely set security to Low (actually, if it were possible, you
    could safely set it to Nonexistent) when executing your own databases or
    trusted ones (e.g., something prepared and long and widely used in your own
    organization).

    (2) Take security precautions when executing databases you downloaded from
    the Internet or got from an untrusted source.

    The only reason I can think of for _not_ running your own databases on Low
    security is that you might forget to set it to Medium or greater when you
    obtained a new one from someone else.

    On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with self-signing your own
    databases, either, except it's a bit of extra work.

    Larry Linson
    Microsoft Access MVP
     
  18. Jamie Collins

    Jamie Collins
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Larry Linson wrote:
    > Sorry, Jamie, Gunny's advice was correct


    I am glad, then, that yesterday I posted to this thread this reply to
    Gunny:

    Gunny: If you think Access 2003 is more secure than earlier versions,
    then you are mistaken.
    JamieC: From what you've written, I accept that...Thanks for taking the
    time to provide the detail that the original reply lacked.

    No need to apologize ;-) I'm sure I'm not the only one to learn
    something from this discussion (see, people? discussion = good <vbg>)

    > The only reason I can think of for _not_ running your own databases on Low
    > security is that you might forget to set it to Medium or greater when you
    > obtained a new one from someone else.


    Amen.

    > On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with self-signing your own
    > databases, either, except it's a bit of extra work.


    I'm not afraid of a bit of extra work <g>. I have a VeriSign digital
    certificate and I take the time to self-cert my 'private' office
    solutions too. Telling paying customers/casual users to lower their
    macro security or to "Just say Yes" is more effort.

    Jamie.

    --
     

Share This Page