• 0

Should I create a unique MySQL user per logged in person?


Question

Yo Neowin!

I want to know what do you suggest in terms of security, and speed, whether is recommended or not to create an individual user for each person that logs in to my site.

I mean. I usually verify a username on a table, and assign unique tables to each of my users with a General MySQL user account with limited privileges. But since I've been reading a little bit more about MySQL (I only know the basics), I've seen that to improve security I could assign certain limits on MySQL users and only allow access to certain tables.

So, what can you suggest me in terms of MySQL users?

Thanks :p

14 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
  On 04/01/2013 at 14:01, SuperKid said:

What do you mean unique mysql user per logged in user, what type of site is this?

I mean, to create a MySQL user. The default user on a MySQL server is root. I would like to know if it would improve security having a separate user like "John" which would only access Joh_products and John_clients table and will have limited privileges like SELECT, DROP, UPDATE, INSERT commands.

This site, is on development right now, so everything can be modified. It's a receipt management website, which each of the users will have their own clients stats, number of purchases, receipts, etc.

  • 0
  On 04/01/2013 at 14:06, Jose_49 said:

I mean, to create a MySQL user. The default user on a MySQL server is root. I would like to know if it would improve security having a separate user like "John" which would only access Joh_products and John_clients table and will have limited privileges like SELECT, DROP, UPDATE, INSERT commands.

This site, is on development right now, so everything can be modified. It's a receipt management website, which each of the users will have their own clients stats, number of purchases, receipts, etc.

I truly would not recommend that at all.

  • 0

NEVER use the root account AT ALL once you've configured the MySQL server, make another account and grant it root-like permissions and ONLY use the root account as a last resort if something breaks to restore everything.

Yes use different accounts for different sites, one account for all clients on one site should be fine i.e. one account for this receipt tracking site, another account for a control panel site, etc.

  • 0

You should only really need one master user for the mysql database itself. Then use web based forms (in PHP for example) to allow the people to add/delete/update their data. They don't need to have direct access to the database tables to do this. I don't really see the point of having totally distinct tables for each user either. Seems like a lot of duplication and you'll end up with a massive amount of tables.

  • 0

Thanks to all of the above. Now I have a clear mind.

  On 04/01/2013 at 14:15, n_K said:

NEVER use the root account AT ALL once you've configured the MySQL server, make another account and grant it root-like permissions and ONLY use the root account as a last resort if something breaks to restore everything.

Yes use different accounts for different sites, one account for all clients on one site should be fine i.e. one account for this receipt tracking site, another account for a control panel site, etc.

I shall take this recommendation then :)

  On 04/01/2013 at 14:28, technikal said:

I don't really see the point of having totally distinct tables for each user either. Seems like a lot of duplication and you'll end up with a massive amount of tables.

:/ There was no other way my logic could function.

I Googled a bit and found that there wasn't any problem having multiple tables. The thing is that it allows flexibility. I didn't see a good way on putting the client info, the receipt #, the quantity, price of the product purchased (because it has a variable price), the current product id, the tax, and whether it was paid, delivered or not. So I could fetch it in a productive way later on....

Anyways, I'm open to suggestions :D

  • 0
  On 04/01/2013 at 15:48, Jose_49 said:

I Googled a bit and found that there wasn't any problem having multiple tables. The thing is that it allows flexibility. I didn't see a good way on putting the client info, the receipt #, the quantity, price of the product purchased (because it has a variable price), the current product id, the tax, and whether it was paid, delivered or not. So I could fetch it in a productive way later on....

Multiple tables are fine, in fact you should be using multiple tables, but there's a much better and organized way of using them. You should be using different tables for storing types of data. If I have Users, Customers, and Receipts; I would create a separate table for each one of them. Then I would create two additional tables used for associations, one for Users->Receipts, and one for Customers->Receipts. These associative tables would only store the unique id's for the rows in the other tables.

Not sure if I explained clear enough or not, also not sure if it's quite the same idea as your system. Either way its best to have different table's for different types of data, since there's no sense in storing the same data multiple times.

  • 0

Certainly use multiple tables, but not for each user. Say you have 10 users and each user has a separate table, if you want to see all the data from all the users you have to search through 10 tables, vs. just the main table for the type of data you want.

So instead of userA_orders, userB_orders, etc. you just have a single orders table, and store what user created the order in the record you insert into the table.

  • 0

if i've read this right. you should create a function user. one user that can insert, update, or delete records, but not modify the database structure. use that user for any transaction, and the root as a last resort.

  • 0
  On 05/01/2013 at 06:34, mollick2 said:

Multiple tables are fine, in fact you should be using multiple tables, but there's a much better and organized way of using them. You should be using different tables for storing types of data. If I have Users, Customers, and Receipts; I would create a separate table for each one of them. Then I would create two additional tables used for associations, one for Users->Receipts, and one for Customers->Receipts. These associative tables would only store the unique id's for the rows in the other tables.

Not sure if I explained clear enough or not, also not sure if it's quite the same idea as your system. Either way its best to have different table's for different types of data, since there's no sense in storing the same data multiple times.

  On 05/01/2013 at 06:44, The_Decryptor said:

Certainly use multiple tables, but not for each user. Say you have 10 users and each user has a separate table, if you want to see all the data from all the users you have to search through 10 tables, vs. just the main table for the type of data you want.

So instead of userA_orders, userB_orders, etc. you just have a single orders table, and store what user created the order in the record you insert into the table.

Now I get it! Yup. Indeed. I know my logic was failing somewhere.

I just need to create a separate column with the current logged in user, and bang it with a WHERE clause to identify the user (*poker face*)

Aaaargh.

Going to work on it right now

Thank you people :D

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Couldn't a custom power plan help to park the non x3d ccd's? Then that would solve this latency/performance issues people are having with the x3d chips?
    • So is Ubuntu and Fedora (with GNOME). It's a welcome move and those that need X11 can easily install as pointed out in the article it but that won't stop a loud minority from whining of course. Funny but It will actually be easier to install X11 on Ubuntu then enable Flatpak support/Flathub and use them.
    • End of an era? Kubuntu is removing default support for X11 in new installs by David Uzondu X11, the old window system whose days have long felt numbered, just saw another one of its major supporters head for the exit. Kubuntu has decided to follow its parent distro's lead, making its next release, version 25.10, a Wayland-only affair for fresh installs. It seems many Linux developers see Wayland as the future. Just recently, Linux Mint started working to improve support for the protocol in Cinnamon, tackling lingering issues with keyboard layouts and input methods. You can even see the progress in KDE's development, where an upgrade to Wayland PiP is planned for KDE Plasma 6.5. So what's the logic behind dropping a session that, for the most part, still works? According to Kubuntu's Rik Mills, the team wants to "rip off this sticking plaster" now, in an interim release, rather than ###### off a lot of people by doing it in the next Long-Term Support version, 26.04. The developers feel that maintaining code for the aging X11 system holds back progress on security and new features that Wayland can enable more easily. Plus, supporting two separate display servers is a massive undertaking. Of course, this change might have some people worried, but relax; all is not lost if you still need the old session. If you're running hardware that acts up, like some older NVIDIA cards, or who relies on an ancient application that doesn't play nicely with the XWayland compatibility layer, you can still get your familiar session back. Just enter the following command in your terminal: sudo apt install plasma-session-x11 Once that command finishes, the X11 session will appear as an option on the login screen, so you can carry on as before. As OMGUbuntu notes, not everyone in the Ubuntu family is following its lead just yet. Other official flavors like Xubuntu, Ubuntu Budgie, and Ubuntu Cinnamon are expected to keep offering an X11 session on their default installs for this cycle.
    • Mangohud hasn't been built into "Steam Deck", it has been built into SteamOS. I understand that your goal is to try and praise MS for a simple feature that everyone else has, but we are comparing OS vs OS. Hardware does not have anything "built-in". Software does. Like it or not, SteamOS has it "built-in". And it is far superior to XBOX game bar's information.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Johnny Mrkvička earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      viraltui earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      serfegyed earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Dedicated
      firey earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Dedicated
      fettermanj earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      642
    2. 2
      Michael Scrip
      221
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      215
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      143
    5. 5
      Xenon
      142
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!