Ah, that makes sense. So it seems that while Jet is lacking the
functionality, it's inadvertantly protected from some forms of SQL
injection attacks. Interesting. Thanks alot for your comments.
Some forms, but certainly not all. The best protection is to use
parameters instead of dynamic sql.
> Ah, that makes sense. So it seems that while Jet is lacking the
> functionality, it's inadvertantly protected from some forms of SQL
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>> header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get
>> a quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.

Signature
Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.
Anthony Jones - 13 Oct 2006 12:20 GMT
> Some forms, but certainly not all. The best protection is to use
> parameters instead of dynamic sql.
It can be a show stopper to scalling up a successful application to SQL
Server from Access when you realise the amount of re-work needed to make an
app secure from SQL Injection. Best option is to do it properly in the
first place rather than relying on the JET not all that compliant SQL
implementation.
> > Ah, that makes sense. So it seems that while Jet is lacking the
> > functionality, it's inadvertantly protected from some forms of SQL
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> >> header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get
> >> a quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.