Is it more secure to create tables with unguessable name?

Question

0.00/5 (No votes)

See more:

If the tables name in the database are unguessable does it make it more secure?
for example instead of naming the user "USER" we name it "USER-x0001"
does this approach make the database more secure again SQL injection?

Posted 14-Jul-15 6:00am

roysalha

Add a Solution

Comments

Suvendu Shekhar Giri 14-Jul-15 12:23pm

Why not prevent SQL injection?
If you have taken preventive measures for SQL injection then I don't think it makes any sense. However, this is my personal opinion let's see other ideas :)

Richard Deeming 14-Jul-15 12:35pm

If you've got a spare hour, watch Troy Hunt's video[^] on the mechanics of SQLi. It includes a demonstration (about 29 minutes in) of a tool which can extract all table and column names from the database.

Choosing "unguessable" table names might provide an extra two seconds of protection when your site is attacked. It will also annoy your and any other developer who has to work with the database.

The only solution to protect your database from SQLi is to use parameterized queries.

roysalha 15-Jul-15 7:36am

Thanks for the video (i will watch it later) and for your quick response.
if user input have been validated and we use parameterized queries like the example below is it enough?

cmd.CommandText = "INSERT INTO [product-SF001] (cat_ID, prod_Name, prod_Description, prod_Img, prod_Active) VALUES (@catID, @prodName, @prodDescription, @prodImgUrl, @isActive)";

cmd.Parameters.Add("@catID", SqlDbType.Int);
cmd.Parameters.Add("@prodName", SqlDbType.VarChar, 50);
cmd.Parameters.Add("@prodDescription", SqlDbType.VarChar, 600);
cmd.Parameters.Add("@prodImgUrl", SqlDbType.VarChar, 250);
cmd.Parameters.Add("@isActive", SqlDbType.Bit);

cmd.Parameters["@catID"].Value = catID;
cmd.Parameters["@prodName"].Value = prodName;
cmd.Parameters["@prodDescription"].Value = prodDescription;
cmd.Parameters["@prodImgUrl"].Value = prodImgUrl;
cmd.Parameters["@isActive"].Value = isActive;

1 solution

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

OriginalGriff · Accepted Answer · 2015-07-14T06:16:00

Solution 1

No, not significantly. It's possible to use SELECT to return all the table names in a DB.
To avoid SQL Injection, use parameterized queries instead of string concatenation.

Posted 14-Jul-15 6:16am

OriginalGriff

Comments

roysalha 15-Jul-15 7:29am

hello, thanks for the quick response.
Sorry maybe my question was not clear enough. I am wondering if all preventive measures for SQL injection have been implemented. Does the "unguessable" table name approach make it more secure?

OriginalGriff 15-Jul-15 7:32am

As I said: "No, not significantly."
You prevent SQL Injection by stopping your users executing their commands, not by trying to limit the damage when they do...