VB 2008 Possible to have a database inside the .exe file? - vb.net

I'm currently making a personal account manager program and right now I've achieved creating one but there is a visible .accdb file along with the .exe itself. And it is not very safe since the .accdb can just be opened.
Is there anyway to achieve this without having a visible database? Or any secure way in achieving this would be appreciated.

SQL Server Compact Edition supports encryption.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg592949(v=sql.110).aspx
And no, you aren't going to be able to embed it in the .exe unless you come up with a tremendously complex scheme of recompiling the .exe every time the database changes.
You could set the hidden attribute on the database file, though, to try to obscure it. It just depends on whether your goal is to stop competent hackers (which it won't do) or just to stop a user from accidently deleting or renaming it (which it will do). A hidden, encrypted, file would do both.

Related

is there a text editor or IDE which has the possibility of running the code written without the necessity to save it in a file?

I created such a thing in python to use for myself since I couldn't find any program that does that (my program saves what you type automatically in temporary files under the hood) but I'm wondering if maybe there is already such a feature somewhere or if this is possible in the pure sense of the concept (run code which resides in memory).

What is the file extension for SQLite code?

In my JS+SQLite project, I'm putting database and table creation SQL code in a separate file, to make the structure clear. What is the recommended file extension? .sql?
I feel a litte stupid for saying "yes, you got it!", but that is what it is.
The .sql-extension is used by some bigger Apps that process Databases, like SQirL and Eclipse IDE.
Keep in mind, that File extensions are purely meant to make it easier for the user to identify its content.
So basically, any extension that you deem readable is just as fine as the any other.

Attaching a specific piece of non-intrusive info to a file or folder to keep a connection to a program

This is going to be a question with a lot of hypotheticals, but it's been on my mind for a while now and I finally want to get some perspectives on how to tackle this "issue". For the sake of the question, I'll make up an example requirement of how the program I want to make would work on a conceptual level without too many specifics.
The Problem
I want to create a program to keep track of miscellaneous info for files and folders. This miscellaneous info can be anything from comments, authors, to more specific info like the original source of the file (a URL for example), categories, tags, and more. All this info is kept track of in an SQLite database.
Now... how would you create a connection to the file (or folder) to the database? Whatever file is added to the program, the file should continue to operate on an independent level from the program, meaning you should be able to edit, copy, move, rename or do anything else with the file you would usually do with your OS of choice - even deleting it.
You should even be able to archive it, zip it, upload it somewhere or do other things that temporarily or permanently removes the file from your system, without losing the connection to the database. The program itself doesn't actually ever touch the files themselves, unless to generate a new entry in the database, but obviously, there should be some kind of reference in the file to a database entry in the program.
Yes, I know that if you delete the file, you would have a dead entry in the database. For now, just treat this as an unfortunate reality that can't be solved unless you incorporate the file more closely into the program.
Possible solutions and why I decided against them
Reference inside Filename
Probably the most obvious choice, you could just have a reference inside the filename to point to a database entry, for example by including the id at the start of the filename:
#1 my-example-file.txt
#12814 this-is-one-of-many-files.txt
Obviously, that goes against what I established earlier, as you would be restricted from freely renaming the file. You would always have to keep in mind to not mess with the id inside the filename, or else the connection to your program is broken. Unfortunately, that is the best bet I currently have, but I would like to avoid using that approach if possible.
Alternate Data Streams (ADS)
A pretty cool feature I recently discovered that's available on NTFS file systems, ADS allows you to store different streams of data for your files, to grossly simplify it. You could attach a data stream to your file that saves the id for the database entry in the program, and a regular user would never be able to mess directly with that.
However, since this is a feature reserved for specific file systems, there's some ugly side effects to ADS, as you can easily lose that part of the file by:
moving/copying it to a file system that doesn't support ADS, such as the file systems most often used in removable drives
uploading it to a cloud then later downloading it
moving it to another OS that might not support ADS or treats it in an unexpected way
zipping it
Thus I can't really rely on ADS either.

Installing a program written in vba: changing office settings

I want to make an installer for programs (games) written in VBA(Office Word).
The problem I need an answer for:
It obviosly uses macros. For these to run the user suppose to change the security settings of word. But I can’t hope that they are able to do that or willing to make that extra effort. So I was wondering if there was a way to do that with the installer. You know, ask them if they want to allow it, and then the program would change the setting of office that the game could run.
Does any of you know if that is possible and if it is what the program is that I should use that for?
Macros cannot change the security level that allows macros to run, because
1 if macros aren't allowed to run they don't run so they can't do anything
and
2 because otherwise bad people would do it without asking and steal all your money from your bank account whenever you opened a word document
However, if your installer is written in some other language it could possibly change the setting. if it was run with sufficiently elevated privileges. But you shouldn't do this for all word documents because bad people. Instead, set up a trusted location - a folder whose file's can run macros, and save your file there. That maintains security for general word documents while allowing your file to run.

SSDT - Build Deployment Script without dacpac

I've got a question about building a deployment script using SSDT.
Could anyone tell me if it's possible to build a deployment script using SQLPackage.exe where the source file is NOT a dacpac file, but uses the .sql files instead?
To give some background, I've created a project in Visual Studio 2012 for my database schema. This works great, and SSDT builds the folder structure without a problem (functions, stored procedures etc which contain all the .sql files).
Here's the problem - the database in question is from a legacy system, and is riddled with errors. Most of these errors we don't care about anymore and it's not practical or safe to fix them all, so for years we've basically ignored them. However it means we can't build the project and therefore can't generate the dacpac file. Now this doesn't prevent us from doing the schema compare and syncing the database with the file system (a local mercurial repository). However it does seemingly prevent us from building a deployment script.
What I'm looking for is a way of building the deployment script using SQLPackage.exe without having to generate the dacpac file. I need to use the .sql files in the file system instead. Visual Studio will produce a script of the differences without building the dacpac, so this makes me think it must be possible to do it using SQLPackage.exe using one of the parameters.
Here's an example of SQLPackage.exe which I'd like to adapt to use the .sql files instead of the dacpac:
sqlpackage.exe /Action:Script /SourceFile:"E:\SourceControl\Project\Database
\test_SSDTProject\bin\Debug\test_SSDTProject.dacpac" /TargetConnectionString:"Data
Source=local;Initial Catalog=TestDB;User ID=abc;Password=abc" /OutputPath:"C:
\temp\hbupdate.sql" /OverwriteFiles:true /p:IgnoreExtendedProperties=True
/p:IgnorePermissions=True /p:IgnoreRoleMembership=True /p:DropObjectsNotInSource=True
This works fine because it uses the dacpac file. However I need to point it at the folder structure where the .sql files are instead.
Any help would be great.
As has been suggested in comments, I think that biting the bullet and fixing the errors is the way ahead. You say
it's not practical or safe to fix them all,
but I think you should give this a bit more thought. I have recently been in a similar situation to you, and the key to emerging from it is to realise that the operational risk associated with dropping procedures and functions that will throw an exception as soon as they are called is zero.
Note that this does not apply if the reason these objects won't build is that they contain cross-database or cross-server references that are present in production but not in your project; this is a separate problem altogether, but also a solvable one.
Nor am I in favour of "exclude from build" as an alternative to "delete"; a while ago I saw a project where this technique had been deployed extensively; it makes it harder to see what does what from the source files and I am now of the opinion that "Build Action=None" is simply "commenting out the bits that don't work" for the Snapchat generation.
The key to all of this, of course, is source control. This addresses the residual risk that one day you might indeed want to implement a working version of one of your currently non-working procedures, using the non-working code as a starting point. It also obviates the need to keep stuff hanging around in the solution using Build Action=None, as one can simply summon an earlier revision of the code that contained the offending objects.
If my experience is any guide, 60 build errors is nothing; these could easily be caused by references to three or four objects that no longer exists, and can be consigned to the dustbin of source control with some enthusiastic use of the "Delete" key.
Do you have a copy of SQL Compare at your disposal? If not, it might be worth downloading the trial to see if it will work in your scenario.
Here are the available switches:
http://documentation.red-gate.com/display/SC10/Switches+used+in+the+command+line
At the very least you'll need to specify the following:
/scripts1:
/server2:
/database2:
/ScriptFile: