|
|
Posted by Bill Karwin on 12/09/05 20:22
Martin wrote:
> I'd venture to say that most db's
> are not designed to have strong security at the file level. I understand
> why (cpu and system load in managing constant encrypt/decrypt processing)
> but it is disturbing nevertheless.
Yes, and in addition :
a) DBMS vendors do not necessarily have expertise with security
implementation. They're focused on data integrity, ACID transactions,
performance, scalability, API support, etc. Security is important and
worthwhile, but is not top of the list of DBMS development priorities.
b) The environments in which a DBMS operates are so variable
(mobile/laptop/desktop/enterprise) that we can't expect the DBMS to
contain the appropriate security solution that is the best for all these
environments.
I think you're better off using the platform's security solution to
restrict access to the database (for instance, firewalls), or else only
put pre-encrypted data into the database, as Christopher Browne
suggested, and handle the encryption & decryption at the application
level. Then you can also be selective about which data are truly
sensitive, and encrypt only those tables or columns.
Besides, if a given DBMS said it contained "security", would you feel
comfortable trusting their implementation, if your data was truly that
sensitive?
Regards,
Bill K.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|