Slashdot Mirror
Keeping Customer From Accessing My Database?
cyteen02 writes "We run a data processing and tracking system for a customer in the UK. We provide a simple Web site where the customer can display the tracking data held in our Oracle database. From these screens they can query based on a combination of 15 different data fields, so it's pretty flexible. We also provide a csv report overnight of the previous day's data processing, which they can load into their own SQL Server database and produce whatever reports they want. Occasionally they also want one-off specific detailed reports, so we write the SQL for that and send them the results in an Excel format spreadsheet. This all ticks along happily. However they have now asked for direct read-only access to our Oracle database, to be able to run ad-hoc queries without consulting us. As a DBA, my heart sinks at the thought of amateurs pawing through my database. Unfortunately, 'because you are stupid' is not considered a valid business reason to reject their request. So can any Slashdotters assist me in building my case to restrict access? Have you experienced a similar situation? Have you had to support this sort of end user access? How would you advice me to keep my customer away from my precious tables?"
Just say no and hope that it sticks. Seriously. I find that so many people in the workforce noadays don't know how to say that simple word. No.
Sometimes its hard to make a case for it if management at your company thinks that you are being unreasonable. However if you are a reasonable person and skilled in your profession, management should trust you to do your job. I'm of the opinion that if management can't trust employees in their area of expertise and to give good advice, then it is not a good place to work. My first tech job became this way, the new management that came along had a distrust of us and it made everything sour. Anyways, that's getting away from your question.
But being a sysadmin, I think you have to stand up for your opinion when the time is right to do so. People who aren't in the know always have requests like this to grant more access, make things easier, keep the customer's demands first. Its your job to draw a line in the sand that says you can't go past that point. Some people don't like that, but honestly it doesn't matter. Rules are there for a reason. They are guides to providing good service for all customers, not just one.
The last thing you want is users writing ad-hoc queries against your live data. Replicate the data to a reporting database and let them abuse that.
You don't want them "pawing" through your database, but you don't give any reasons why that is a bad idea. If you can't come up with any, you're not going to get very far in your argument. If it is a read-only view of only the data they should be able to see, what is the harm?
No, seriously. Answer that question, and you have a basis for your argument. If you don't have an answer besides "it makes me feel dirty," you've lost.
How are they going to mess up your database with read-only access? They could run intensive queries, I guess. But unless you've got million+ row tables that are being accessed concurrently by tens of clients, this shouldn't be much of a problem.
Anyway, just enable logging and look through what they've been doing in case it's anything stupid. I used to work for a large insurance firm and we'd get a call minutes after doing against the database we shouldn't.
Do they have a seat license to access the data?
No discounts.
You do not answer SQL questions.
Provide 2yr old data dictionary (just like MS does)
For the love of science do not give them access to your production database, they WILL screw it up, even with just read access.
Here is the psudocode from their SQL:
Select * from everything join everything where non-indexed column like '%'
you need to make them a COPY of the data that they are allowed to access on a seperate database (preferably a seperate server). Most reasonable replication suites allow you to do things like this.
How about just a simple "No." The database, while containing data pertitnent to your customer, is still your\your companies property. Simply tell them that access to that level, or in fact any level beyond what is alreayd granted to them as a customer, is for you and\or your employees only. Just because he's a customer, doesn't grant him unfettered access to your company or it's property, whether that property is physical or electronic.
Mirror the database to a 2nd server and provide them read access to that. It has several advantages.
1) You don't have to worry about them causing problems in the production database.
2) You can optimize the replica for read access. A read only database can generally perform MANY times better than one that has to be optimized to support read/write and especially if it is highly transactional.
Granted, it costs you a bit in hardware and setup time, etc. But if you're really nervous about it, then it should do the trick. Given the limited load on the replica and its read only nature it should be able to live on limited hardware, like maybe an older server that you have hanging around. Plus you don't have to worry about reliability either. If the thing blows up no data is lost.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Why not set up an account that has read only access? Why not create a view of the table that shows only the columns they need? It'll be good customer service and relations. Just remember, your company can be replaced and if you don't give them the service they want they'll get it somewhere else.
Don't use your work e-mail address when you call your clients "stupid" in a public forum?
(It's two a.m. here, I bet somebody'll point out some completely idiotic assumption I made in about two seconds. Oh well, so it goes.)
just now when said like that.
I am not sure why a DBA doesn't know this, but just create read only views
Seriously - are you really a DBA, or just someone that got stuck DBAing? This situation is dealt with at every place I have ever worked, without exception.
You could also create a Cube. This might be 24 hours old, but I don't know who many transactions we are talking about here.
Be sure you can track all logins, and log what they do.
They are not your tables, get that out of your mind. They are the companies. All you can do is write a report explaining the risks to management, and be sure the users know they are liable when they make a mistake. Then set up views.
Yes, if they screw up you will be the one to fix it, that's your job. At least you can wave off any fault.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You are supporting them, so make it happen.
Yes, bad queries can run amuck, which is why you give them access to a slaved reporting instance of the DB.
Your tables are not precious, and they're not even yours, they are your customers. Let them run their queries on the reporting database, never the production DB.
Regards,
Website Hosting
Agree, just say NO. If they absolutely insist, replicate the tables that they need to see to a second server.
BTW have they offered to pay for all of the consulting time that they are going to request in understanding your schema and formulating their queries? Has management planned on the increase in personnel that your team is going to need to respond to these requests?
Finally, if you expose the schema to outside users, you are effectively making this your API. If you want to change your schema in the future, you are going to be breaking all of the legacy queries that you customers have written.
Statesman
I've run into this myself.
I simply say that "Due to other client data being in the same database I am unable to allow you access. Since doing so would violate the privacy and security of their data, I sure that you would understand why I can't do that. I'm also sure how you would feel if the roles were reversed and how you would feel if another client asked for direct access and could see or read your data."
Usually this takes care of the problem. If not, tell them how much it will cost to set up a stand alone database that only contains their data and then give them some unreasonable amount. If they agree, then you just made your company a nice chunk of change. You then set up the database, and the scripts to replicate the data to back it up (when the client hoses themselves) and move on. When the call comes in that they hosed their database, you charge them for the time to restore from the back-up times a factor of two or three, and again, you've set yourself as the goldenchild for your company by making them money.
-Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
"I don't like them pawing through my database" makes me think that you're embarrassed by the database structure, and don't want people to see how screwed up it is. If that's the reason, then maybe it's time to fix things.
If it's just some weird possessiveness thing, then get over it. It's not your data. It belongs to your company. It's their servers, their programs and their data. If they want to give access, it's their decision, not yours.
Otherwise, a good reason not to allow direct access is performance. Amateurs doing queries against the "real" database can kill the server if they're not doing it correctly. My recommendation is to provision an entirely separate database server with a regularly-updated version of the data (perhaps even a "fixed" version if my first point is in play) and let them go wild on that.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
If the only reason to refuse them access is that you "don't like the idea", you should come up with a proper reason you feel that way, and if you can't, you should change your opinion - or risk gaining a reputation as an arrogant, arbitrary obstructionist.
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
Wow, you're right. Next week "Ask Slashdot: How to find a DBA job after being fired from EDS"
If you really want to make a case to management, write out all the worst case scenarios for your management (I know that there should only be one WORST case scenario, but work with me here). If you can list the things that can go wrong, you might be able to help. I once worked in an environment where a developer wrote a query that locked a database for four hours until we killed it. One of the DBAs was able to re-write his query so that it completed in under 10 seconds. His access was then revoked.
Tell you boss how someone with read only access could affect the rest of the users, and you should be on the right track.
Still, with a plan, you only get the best you can imagine. I'd always hoped for something better than that. -CP
Just say no and hope that it sticks. Seriously. I find that so many people in the workforce noadays don't know how to say that simple word. No.
:-)
Hey, I have a consulting firm that would be willing to work with the client to ensure they have that database access.
What we could do is give them the query access via their own public synonym space, and build it into our SLA that we are not responsible for downtime due to their querying. We would also bundle some support costs into the agreement.
This is my sig.
And that is to generate a nightly backup of the database (or even a continuous one-way replication of the database), run it in its own virtual machine, and give the customer access to the backup. It's really that simple. The last thing you want to do is to give the customer direct access to your production database system, no matter what kind of security oracle thinks they can provide it would be a big mistake.
If money (in the form of ridiculously expensive oracle licenses) is a concern, then just create a daily backup and run the copy in mysql for the customer.
-Matt
"Absolutely, we would be delighted to provide you with this high-value ad-hoc access system. In order to protect our valuable operational infrastructure this will require the installation of a separate datawarehouse. Provisioning this system will cost $X, the monthly charge for maintenance of the system, the population of the datawarehouse and the provision of secure access will cost $Y"
The advantage of this approach:
1. It makes you look helpful and willing to accomodate your customers
2. It makes it clear what some of the issues are
3. If you set the values of $X and $Y at the correct values you can generate significant additional revenue for your business
4. If you set the values of $X and $Y just a little higher, the answer equates to "No".
Win-Win.
The business rule here is:
"This is a complex Oracle database, and yes, even read-only access can cause major problems. These problems are prevented by accessing the data through the approved application.
If you would like full query access, you will need to provide an Oracle-trained staff member to perform that work. And even then, all warranties on the system are off.
Our preferred solution to your business requirements in this case is for you to submit queries for approval and/or integration into the front-end application. If there are strict deadlines involved, please let us know and we can try to accommodate those.
Please understand this isn't an issue of control, but simply of us trying to maintain a high level of quality of service. It may seem like read-only access is safe, but it is not. If you would like further clarification of this reasoning, please contact us and we would be happy to arrange a presentation."
If they want a presentation, you show them how poor queries can crash the database or cause unacceptable performance problems and misunderstood results.
Oracle is more than capable of dealing with this situation.
... figure out the real reasons you don't want them to have access to the database and make your case based around that, if you have one. Don't try to BS your way out of it with a 'its insecure' or 'its dangerous' excuse, cause in those cases the fault lies in you, and they may very well have a DBA that can point that out. If you want to use those excuses, you shouldn't have used an enterprise class RDBMS that has been capable of dealing with these requests for years.
You use a combination of views custom to their needs and access restrictions on tables to ensure they only see their data.
You don't grant them any permission to write to any table or view.
You configure their user so it can't starve the system of resources so they can't disrupt everyone else that uses the system.
Oracle is made for this sort of thing. If you were talking about MySQL or PostgreSQL, it'd be a little different as they aren't nearly as mature.
Being able to configure Oracle to do this stuff is why you get to be called a 'DBA', since you know, DBAs administer DBs.
Now
Theres a reason Oracle costs a fortune and people still use it over open source alternatives, its MADE for these sort of problems.
If you don't want them wasting your CPU power for their queries, thats a fine reason. What are they willing to pay to get special access to the data? Its going to cost you time and energy to create a user for the database that has proper permissions, they definately need to pay for that.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
If the customer does not understand the structure of the data, they can get bad answers that are disastrous. What if the data has the same amount under several categories and the customer decides to add all the categories together to get a total and then makes a business decision based on that answer? I've seen it happen!
"what kind of DBA is unable to create views and restrict access to tables?"
One that works for EDS, who are famous for their incompetence. Next question!
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
...that makes the IT department a liability.
Providing improvements to business processes where technically possible, affordable, and not illegal is the number one job, just above securing company data. Because if you can't do number one, there isn't much worth securing for number 2.
Is a requested enhancement required for a company? Probably not. Is it important to provide continuous improvement and efficiency to keep the company competitive? Frequently it is.
I'm all for standing up and saying what kind of resources and safeguards are necessary to provide an enhancement so the company can decide how to expense the upgrade. But just saying ninny, ninny, boo, boo, you can't have it is ridiculous.
First, you have to start by saying "Yes". Then you let the customer decide on his own that he really doesn't want what he just asked for.
Your problem is that the customer has come to you with a business problem. Someone, somewhere, has decided that it might be fun to have full access to SQL queries instead of those boring prepared reports they have been getting. Chances are that it came up in a meeting when one of the customer's own technical people was trying to explain why he couldn't deliver the Moon, two pieces of cake and a pony upon request.
"Why can't we get more detailed data than this?"
"Um, because it's not in the report. We would need, uh, raw SQL access to the database to get that and that's not going to happen."
"Why not?"
"Um, because those guys won't let us."
The idea built up momentum until it got to you. So far all that they can see is that they have business reasons for wanting data and all they need to do is ask you for it so they can have it. Now you have very understandable technical reasons why you do not want unwashed, barely literate knuckle dragging Neanderthals who don't know the difference between an outer join and an outside straight from being able to touch your database. Unfortunately they are _technical_ reasons and not _business_ reasons and business trumps technical. Think of business reasons as being 'Paper' and technical reasons as 'Rock'. Oh, and some kid ran off with the scissors, so that's all you have to play with. The only way to win at that game is to keep choosing 'Paper' until your opponent gets bored and leaves.
So how do you do that? You forget about the technical problems and explain the simple _business_ costs involved in resolving them. Your customer needs access to a database? Fine. Naturally they can't just use the main database for that. They will need their own dedicated reporting database server. (Ching!) With software licenses. (Ching! Ching!) And storage. (Ching!) Plus administrative overhead, datacentre costs, additional bandwidth, and so on. (Ching ching ching!) These are all things which you will need to provide to the customer in order to give them their pony^W own database to play with. All they need to do is pay for them.
Suddenly the technical problem of "No you can't play with the main database server" turns into "Of course you can have that if you pay $X up front and $Y additional annually", which is a business problem. Write up a rough quote, send it to the customers, and let them decide for themselves if their sudden whim of making their own queries justifies the actual costs involved in having it. If you have any alternative suggestions such as how you could provide additional canned reports or develop a slightly more flexible set of queries which they could use, feel free to attach estimates for the real costs of those projects too.
The key here is to make sure you tell them that you would be quite happy to provide any of the solutions you have offered. If they're smart, and your estimation of the costs of replicating your entire DB server are accurate, they should be able to talk themselves into doing the right thing without any further encouragement from you. If, on the other hand, they do decide that it's worth that much to them, and you're smart, then you should be in a good position to sell them that additional service.
"Who's paying for this?"
DBA time ain't exactly cheap, and setting this all up, the needed SysAdmin time to get the firewall/proxy port issues worked out/certificates setup, etc...
Figure 40 hours of time for the DBA and 30 hours for the Sysadmin..
160 and 240 per sound good?
That's $ 13,500.00
You guys ain't planning on doing 10 grand worth of work for FREE, were you?
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
..."Have you experienced a similar situation?"...
Yes, It frustrates me frequently that useful, non-contentious (ie. not hippa, ssn, pci, DoD etc.) data seems to make a one-way trip into the corporate oracle system to be held hostage there by the dbas for not much good reason than they want to ensure perpetual employment.
There are plenty of good ways in which this data could be made available. Hell; save it periodically to a flat text file, but don't lock people out of it. You're the guardian of the data, not its gaoler and I'm willing to bet that the people that want access to the data have their reasons.
Nullius in verba
Try not to squelch their enthusiasm to explore. It will likely mean new business opportunities for your company.
If you are really "hiding" information as its owner and not "protecting" information as its custodian, then you should consider a different business model, one where the value is placed on the data and not the service.
I am constantly reminded to look away from the monitor for for a few minutes and talk to people by this great quote from an interview of famous programmers I found on slash a few years(?) ago.
The next big thing in computer programming will be eclipsed by the next-next big thing in programming, and so on, and so on. I'm kinda tired of the endless search for the big things, because while doing it people tend to forget about the real issues: getting the fundamentals right. We need to get a whole lot better at talking with our customers, focussing on delivering value, and taking pride in what we do. A developer who can do these things can deliver great software with any tool set, and won't need to worry about tracking the fads and fashions.- Dave Thomas, Author or The Pragmatic Programmer -
You're a DBA. You're supposed to figure out how to give your customers access to the data they want, not to keep them away from it. You have forgotten what your calling is. You should be ashamed of yourself. Stop asking yourself how to restrict access and lock your customer out, and start asking how to give them what they want.