Information Security Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for information security professionals. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Our warehouse site desperately requires a database that runs efficiently, is secure and we can modify ourselves. Unfortunately the Company's policy does not allow any servers on site, only at headquarters. We are allowed to create MS Access databases and modify them, but if we wish them to be run on a SQL server, it has to be supported by IT and we lose access to make any modifications. Access runs like a snail over the network as headquarters is in another state. Even a small file with a simple structure can freeze up or take minutes to open a form.

My question is, is there a solution for our situation? Is it possible to get around all the red tape? How can I argue that they aren't providing what we need and get them to listen?

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by Gilles, Chris Dale, Rory Alsop Jul 10 '12 at 21:25

Questions on Information Security Stack Exchange are expected to relate to Information security within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I don't think this is really a security question. It may be better suited on the Serverfault site. – Steve Jul 8 '12 at 6:48
I guess my line of thought was because they always say no because of security concerns, what is a solution that is secure enough for their trust and also suits our needs? – Jon Muffn Jul 8 '12 at 14:24

Before trying to convince them that their policy is restricting your requirements, first find out why they have this policy in place.

I have worked with companies in the past with similar requirements, and it can be a pain, but when you consider the risks of a locally hosted SQL server (backup requirements, licensing requirements, risk of an insecure and untested front end, patching and maintenance issues) it makes more sense to have them hosted in a central location with dedicated personnel.

I know this maybe isn't the answer that you are looking for, but it is much easier to work with a company policy when you understand the reason for it existing.

share|improve this answer
you're right abt finding out why they put such restrictions in place.. – fduff Jul 8 '12 at 20:55
The reason for not allowing a server onsite is because IT would have no control over the security and it may expose the network to unwanted vulnerabilities. The reason for not allowing a server at headquarters that we can access ourselves is because of the risk to other databases. – Jon Muffn Jul 9 '12 at 9:25
@JonMuffn - If you need access to more then a simple access database, go through your companies process, to get your own sql database. You have no other choice, since by policy, your limited in what you can do. – Ramhound Jul 9 '12 at 11:31

You have multiple options here:

  • Opt to increase the bandwidth of your uplink
  • Change the company policy or ask for an exception

All of the above will require a case study that shows that you are working ineffectively because of this bottleneck. Present this to your management, they should look into it.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.