Nice to know again ...

See Edd you are "reading" - cant say the same about my staff here .... this is one of those times you feel having knowledgable people isn't always enough...

I meant to clarify - that response tells one of 2 things about the staff -

1. they aren't as well informed to know of the option of an alias...

Good that you asked ..I almost forgot ... see we did ask the administration staff the feasibility of "calling the new machine the old name" and here's what we got...

Yes I did .. with the same title under "SQL 2005 security" ... I did receive a very sensible explaination

Should this have been a poll? instead ....

Thanks again .. that makes perfect sense ....

P S - how "Anon" is Anon?

This makes sense - so there is a chance that the password hash could have been dependent on the machine ID or something specific to the old box that of...

Also, wouldn't/shouldn't the password encryption routines of SQL (at least 2005+) be confidential?

[font="Arial"]Matt,

Thanks!!! That was a very clear and comprehensive description of the idea around a password hash. Honestly, I find it a little easy to discuss SQL on external forums than...

Matt, I was not using anything to verify of the password had a bad hash - this came from the DBA team which worked 'behind the scenes to come back...

Thank you ...

Thanks much .. will create a new post in the security forum and update with the items you pointed ... watch out for this soon.

Thoughts?

appreciate it