Hi Pavel,

> > > I have a strange problem on my hands: a customer of mine found
> > > out he could connect to any database if he left the user and
> > > passwords fields blank (using an app I wrote).
> > > ...
> > > I know he works under Win2K so I asked if he logged into Windows
> > > as Administrator. Yes, he did; if he logged in as another user,
> > > the free access didn't work.
> <snip>
>
> While I understand your surprise, this behaviour is normal,
> intentional and DOCUMENTED.

My customer's surprise was due to the fact that this could happen at
all. He thought it was a security breach. Fortunately, I could explain
to him that it was not.

My own surprise was not because it happened (for I already knew what
the docs say at this point), but that it worked at _his_ Win2k box and
_not_ on mine. At that moment in time, I thought we had exactly the
same configs.

Before I made my initial posting two weeks ago, I checked and
rechecked the docs, did a number of tests here and made my customer
run some of those tests over at his place. The anomaly remained, and
nothing in the docs could explain it.
Also - another surprise - it turned out that on Linux, even as root, I
had to specify FB user and password or else I could not connect. This
is contrary to what the documentation says. (And yes - localhost is in
hosts.equiv)

As it turns out, the documentation is not correct at this point. Like
I reported in my previous posting, this "free superuser access":

- does NOT work at all for FB 1.0.0 SS / Linux
- does NOT work for FB 1.0.0 SS / Win2k if run as a service (default)
- DOES work for FB 1.0.0 SS / Win2k if run as an application

Because I don't have the time to install classic servers and test them
too, I asked people who run CS if they can post or mail if it works
for them (I suppose it does). This way we can make the picture
complete and feed this information back to the doc maintainers.

So if you run CS and you have 5-10 minutes to spare... :-)


Greetings from snowy Amsterdam,
Paul Vinkenoog