http://techwhizbang.com/2010/06/stored-procedure-myth-busters/ my work, life, and ideas Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:04:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://techwhizbang.com/2010/06/stored-procedure-myth-busters/comment-page-1/#comment-93 techwhizbang Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:13:58 +0000 http://techwhizbang.com/?p=265#comment-93 Good point Todd, I didn't consider that. Good point Todd, I didn’t consider that.

]]> http://techwhizbang.com/2010/06/stored-procedure-myth-busters/comment-page-1/#comment-92 Todd Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:20:52 +0000 http://techwhizbang.com/?p=265#comment-92 You are wrong about security. Stored procs are more secure. If you grant a user write permissions to a table, the user can circumvent an application create a linked table in access. If the user only has access to the stored procedure the user can not update the table directly. Since auditing (such as storing the user who does the update in the table) can be coded in the stored proc, they are more secure. You are wrong about security. Stored procs are more secure. If you grant a user write permissions to a table, the user can circumvent an application create a linked table in access. If the user only has access to the stored procedure the user can not update the table directly. Since auditing (such as storing the user who does the update in the table) can be coded in the stored proc, they are more secure.

]]>