>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>When I am testing an application that uses SQL Server 2008 Authentication and the applications needs to execute stored procedures, I determine that the SQL Server database User must have the role dbOwner checked (assigned). Is this correct or there could be another role that would allow user executing stored procedures? (the reason for my questions is to understand the Users and Roles better).
>>>
>>>TIA.
>>
>>It is not important what role the application or the user has, only that the stored procedure itself has permissions set to allow execute. Right click the sp in the object browser and go to properties. Look at permissions.
>>
>>this is also true for doing inserts, updates etc on tables. It is also a function of to what degree these permissions are nailed down on the database itself. By default I don't believe you need permissions but any thing maintained by a DBA will be nailed down and permissions will have to be granted explicitly.
>>
>>( and remember with SPs, if you alter you keep the permissions but if you drop and recreate you don't )
>
>First, thank you for your detailed message. I understand now that you can define permissions down to every table and/or every SP. But I - at this point and for simplicity - prefer to just have one "thing" to set for the user and that it would allow the user to have access to All tables and All stored procedures. This is why I was experimenting with assigning a User to a role dbOwner. Which does it all. But I will read again what you are saying and try to understand better.

>>This is why I was experimenting with assigning a User to a role dbOwner
That's OK and a I do that often. Realize, however, that it has the effect of removing all of SQL Server's protections and you're on your own.