It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
, why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
is too simple, just copy and read it.
Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
Best regards,
Ridwan
PemBukuan.Com
http://www.as3000.com
RW,
Security in general is said to start with the physical box - once this is
compromised then there's little you can do (eg Linux can be used to bypass
NTFS so file system security doesn't help). SQL Server security itself is
based on logins, users and permissions/roles, all of which exist in the
database file, so, after the box is accessed (compromised), someone needs to
be able to access/compromise the file.
There's no simple solution apart from securing the box and the files; you
can password protect your backups but not the datafiles.
Regards,
Paul Ibison
|||Why not MS add an additional physics login password as an option ? just
like what we have in excel, word, access ? I know that kind of password
is too simple, they can build a more advance password, I think may be
they don't want to take the risk of while users forget the password.
If developer want to distribute an application with safe and small
capacity database, then I think the MSDE is not a choice.
Paul Ibison wrote:
> RW,
> Security in general is said to start with the physical box - once this is
> compromised then there's little you can do (eg Linux can be used to bypass
> NTFS so file system security doesn't help). SQL Server security itself is
> based on logins, users and permissions/roles, all of which exist in the
> database file, so, after the box is accessed (compromised), someone needs to
> be able to access/compromise the file.
> There's no simple solution apart from securing the box and the files; you
> can password protect your backups but not the datafiles.
> Regards,
> Paul Ibison
sql
Showing posts with label someonecopy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label someonecopy. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
ms sql server 2000 too weak ?
It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
, why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
is too simple, just copy and read it.
Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
Best regards,
Ridwan
--
PemBukuan.Com
http://www.as3000.comRW,
Security in general is said to start with the physical box - once this is
compromised then there's little you can do (eg Linux can be used to bypass
NTFS so file system security doesn't help). SQL Server security itself is
based on logins, users and permissions/roles, all of which exist in the
database file, so, after the box is accessed (compromised), someone needs to
be able to access/compromise the file.
There's no simple solution apart from securing the box and the files; you
can password protect your backups but not the datafiles.
Regards,
Paul Ibison|||Why not MS add an additional physics login password as an option ? just
like what we have in excel, word, access ? I know that kind of password
is too simple, they can build a more advance password, I think may be
they don't want to take the risk of while users forget the password.
If developer want to distribute an application with safe and small
capacity database, then I think the MSDE is not a choice.
Paul Ibison wrote:
> RW,
> Security in general is said to start with the physical box - once this is
> compromised then there's little you can do (eg Linux can be used to bypass
> NTFS so file system security doesn't help). SQL Server security itself is
> based on logins, users and permissions/roles, all of which exist in the
> database file, so, after the box is accessed (compromised), someone needs
to
> be able to access/compromise the file.
> There's no simple solution apart from securing the box and the files; you
> can password protect your backups but not the datafiles.
> Regards,
> Paul Ibison
, why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
is too simple, just copy and read it.
Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
Best regards,
Ridwan
--
PemBukuan.Com
http://www.as3000.comRW,
Security in general is said to start with the physical box - once this is
compromised then there's little you can do (eg Linux can be used to bypass
NTFS so file system security doesn't help). SQL Server security itself is
based on logins, users and permissions/roles, all of which exist in the
database file, so, after the box is accessed (compromised), someone needs to
be able to access/compromise the file.
There's no simple solution apart from securing the box and the files; you
can password protect your backups but not the datafiles.
Regards,
Paul Ibison|||Why not MS add an additional physics login password as an option ? just
like what we have in excel, word, access ? I know that kind of password
is too simple, they can build a more advance password, I think may be
they don't want to take the risk of while users forget the password.
If developer want to distribute an application with safe and small
capacity database, then I think the MSDE is not a choice.
Paul Ibison wrote:
> RW,
> Security in general is said to start with the physical box - once this is
> compromised then there's little you can do (eg Linux can be used to bypass
> NTFS so file system security doesn't help). SQL Server security itself is
> based on logins, users and permissions/roles, all of which exist in the
> database file, so, after the box is accessed (compromised), someone needs
to
> be able to access/compromise the file.
> There's no simple solution apart from securing the box and the files; you
> can password protect your backups but not the datafiles.
> Regards,
> Paul Ibison
ms sql server 2000 security too weak ?
It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
, why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
is too simple, just copy and read it.
Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
Best regards,
Ridwan
--
PemBukuan.Com
http://www.as3000.com"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
> , why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
> copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
> read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
> at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
> is too simple, just copy and read it.
> Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
> technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
> Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
- NTFS security
- Data Encryption
- Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
easily.
b.t.w. there is nearly no protection against harddisk access by a
technician. You can't blame MS for that. But data encryption by the
application that uses MSDE is a solution...|||1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
another server without any protection.
2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance while
we process large amount of data
I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy to
maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be that's
much better than let it open.
> You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
> - NTFS security
> - Data Encryption
> - Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
> easily.
> b.t.w. there is nearly no protection against harddisk access by a
> technician. You can't blame MS for that. But data encryption by the
> application that uses MSDE is a solution...|||"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
> 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
> database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
> another server without any protection.
> 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance while
> we process large amount of data
see below...
> I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy to
> maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
> excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
> specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
> mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
> Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be that's
> much better than let it open.
Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools' that
are available on the net.
So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
(public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file. A
single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained, useless.
Cheers,|||hi
what is necessary to do for encrypt data?
atte,
Hernn Castelo
UTN Buenos Aires
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
"Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS)" <egbert_nierop@.nospam.invalid> escribi en el
mensaje
news:uj3L1IFIEHA.3356@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
> , why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
> copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
> read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
> at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
> is too simple, just copy and read it.
> Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
> technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
> Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
- NTFS security
- Data Encryption
- Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
easily.
b.t.w. there is nearly no protection against harddisk access by a
technician. You can't blame MS for that. But data encryption by the
application that uses MSDE is a solution...|||> "Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS)" <egbert_nierop@.nospam.invalid> escribi en
el mensaje
> news:uj3L1IFIEHA.3356@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
> - NTFS security
> - Data Encryption
> - Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
> easily.
"Hernn Castelo" <hhh@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23KshfkMIEHA.3476@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> hi
> what is necessary to do for encrypt data?
> --
> atte,
> Hernn Castelo
> UTN Buenos Aires
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
Your application can encrypt data. If you have .NET you can use Rijnhaeve
(If I spell correctly) and such. .NET samples show how to do it.
With C++ (7.0 and higher) there are encryption templates as well.|||You didn't get my question, what I mean is if your database which you
have protect with the algorithm and re-install by somebody in their
server, then all your data will be seen and access using their 'sa'
login, so where's the protection ?
Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:
> "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
> see below...
>
> Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
> stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools' tha
t
> are available on the net.
> So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
> (public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file. A
> single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained, useless.
> Cheers,|||If the user is an administrator of the SQL Server, then they can steal your
MDF files. But then, they can do anything anyway.
If the user is an administrator of the Windows machine that SQL Server is
on, then they can steal everything on the server anyway.
Normal users can not do this.
So, you need to trust your administrators.
Anyway, even if there was a "separate" password, how would your applications
access the database? They would need the password, which means it has to be
stored somewhere, which means the administrator could steal it from there
(eg from the client application, or by monitoring the traffic that goes into
SQL Server).
Cheers
Ken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:407B4E73.682C@.centrin.net.id...
: You didn't get my question, what I mean is if your database which you
: have protect with the algorithm and re-install by somebody in their
: server, then all your data will be seen and access using their 'sa'
: login, so where's the protection ?
:
:
:
: Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:
: >
: > "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
: > news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
: > > 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
: > > database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
: > > another server without any protection.
: > >
: > > 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance
while
: > > we process large amount of data
: >
: > see below...
: >
: > > I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy
to
: > > maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
: > > excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
: > > specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
: > > mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
: > >
: > > Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be
that's
: > > much better than let it open.
: >
: > Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
: > stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools'
that
: > are available on the net.
: > So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
: > (public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file.
A
: > single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained,
useless.
: >
: > Cheers,
:|||Sometimes trusting people too full is risky to the company, it should be
a double checking procedure and control by two authorized person.
About the monitoring data traffic is not very easy do that if the
application using a native database driver, except ODBC.
My suggestion is when attaching the MDF files will require the original
serial number of ms.sql server 2000 where it was created, I think at
least this is another way to protect the MDF files, even somebody or the
kick out administrator copy it, then it's useless, they should know the
serial number to access the MDF.
What do you think ?
brgs,
Ridwan
Ken Schaefer wrote:
> If the user is an administrator of the SQL Server, then they can steal you
r
> MDF files. But then, they can do anything anyway.
> If the user is an administrator of the Windows machine that SQL Server is
> on, then they can steal everything on the server anyway.
> Normal users can not do this.
> So, you need to trust your administrators.
> Anyway, even if there was a "separate" password, how would your applicatio
ns
> access the database? They would need the password, which means it has to b
e
> stored somewhere, which means the administrator could steal it from there
> (eg from the client application, or by monitoring the traffic that goes in
to
> SQL Server).
> Cheers
> Ken
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
> "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> news:407B4E73.682C@.centrin.net.id...
> : You didn't get my question, what I mean is if your database which you
> : have protect with the algorithm and re-install by somebody in their
> : server, then all your data will be seen and access using their 'sa'
> : login, so where's the protection ?
> :
> :
> :
> : Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:
> : >
> : > "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> : > news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
> : > > 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
> : > > database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
> : > > another server without any protection.
> : > >
> : > > 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance
> while
> : > > we process large amount of data
> : >
> : > see below...
> : >
> : > > I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and eas
y
> to
> : > > maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
> : > > excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
> : > > specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
> : > > mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
> : > >
> : > > Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be
> that's
> : > > much better than let it open.
> : >
> : > Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, S
QL
> : > stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools'
> that
> : > are available on the net.
> : > So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
> : > (public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a fil
e.
> A
> : > single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained,
> useless.
> : >
> : > Cheers,
> :|||> what is necessary to do for encrypt data?
>
Checkout www.database-encryption.com
www.sql-shield.com
, why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
is too simple, just copy and read it.
Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
Best regards,
Ridwan
--
PemBukuan.Com
http://www.as3000.com"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
> , why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
> copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
> read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
> at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
> is too simple, just copy and read it.
> Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
> technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
> Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
- NTFS security
- Data Encryption
- Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
easily.
b.t.w. there is nearly no protection against harddisk access by a
technician. You can't blame MS for that. But data encryption by the
application that uses MSDE is a solution...|||1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
another server without any protection.
2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance while
we process large amount of data
I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy to
maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be that's
much better than let it open.
> You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
> - NTFS security
> - Data Encryption
> - Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
> easily.
> b.t.w. there is nearly no protection against harddisk access by a
> technician. You can't blame MS for that. But data encryption by the
> application that uses MSDE is a solution...|||"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
> 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
> database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
> another server without any protection.
> 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance while
> we process large amount of data
see below...
> I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy to
> maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
> excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
> specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
> mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
> Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be that's
> much better than let it open.
Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools' that
are available on the net.
So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
(public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file. A
single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained, useless.
Cheers,|||hi
what is necessary to do for encrypt data?
atte,
Hernn Castelo
UTN Buenos Aires
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
"Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS)" <egbert_nierop@.nospam.invalid> escribi en el
mensaje
news:uj3L1IFIEHA.3356@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
> , why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
> copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
> read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
> at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
> is too simple, just copy and read it.
> Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
> technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
> Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
- NTFS security
- Data Encryption
- Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
easily.
b.t.w. there is nearly no protection against harddisk access by a
technician. You can't blame MS for that. But data encryption by the
application that uses MSDE is a solution...|||> "Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS)" <egbert_nierop@.nospam.invalid> escribi en
el mensaje
> news:uj3L1IFIEHA.3356@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
> - NTFS security
> - Data Encryption
> - Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
> easily.
"Hernn Castelo" <hhh@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23KshfkMIEHA.3476@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> hi
> what is necessary to do for encrypt data?
> --
> atte,
> Hernn Castelo
> UTN Buenos Aires
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
Your application can encrypt data. If you have .NET you can use Rijnhaeve
(If I spell correctly) and such. .NET samples show how to do it.
With C++ (7.0 and higher) there are encryption templates as well.|||You didn't get my question, what I mean is if your database which you
have protect with the algorithm and re-install by somebody in their
server, then all your data will be seen and access using their 'sa'
login, so where's the protection ?
Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:
> "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
> see below...
>
> Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
> stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools' tha
t
> are available on the net.
> So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
> (public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file. A
> single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained, useless.
> Cheers,|||If the user is an administrator of the SQL Server, then they can steal your
MDF files. But then, they can do anything anyway.
If the user is an administrator of the Windows machine that SQL Server is
on, then they can steal everything on the server anyway.
Normal users can not do this.
So, you need to trust your administrators.
Anyway, even if there was a "separate" password, how would your applications
access the database? They would need the password, which means it has to be
stored somewhere, which means the administrator could steal it from there
(eg from the client application, or by monitoring the traffic that goes into
SQL Server).
Cheers
Ken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:407B4E73.682C@.centrin.net.id...
: You didn't get my question, what I mean is if your database which you
: have protect with the algorithm and re-install by somebody in their
: server, then all your data will be seen and access using their 'sa'
: login, so where's the protection ?
:
:
:
: Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:
: >
: > "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
: > news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
: > > 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
: > > database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
: > > another server without any protection.
: > >
: > > 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance
while
: > > we process large amount of data
: >
: > see below...
: >
: > > I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy
to
: > > maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
: > > excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
: > > specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
: > > mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
: > >
: > > Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be
that's
: > > much better than let it open.
: >
: > Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
: > stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools'
that
: > are available on the net.
: > So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
: > (public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file.
A
: > single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained,
useless.
: >
: > Cheers,
:|||Sometimes trusting people too full is risky to the company, it should be
a double checking procedure and control by two authorized person.
About the monitoring data traffic is not very easy do that if the
application using a native database driver, except ODBC.
My suggestion is when attaching the MDF files will require the original
serial number of ms.sql server 2000 where it was created, I think at
least this is another way to protect the MDF files, even somebody or the
kick out administrator copy it, then it's useless, they should know the
serial number to access the MDF.
What do you think ?
brgs,
Ridwan
Ken Schaefer wrote:
> If the user is an administrator of the SQL Server, then they can steal you
r
> MDF files. But then, they can do anything anyway.
> If the user is an administrator of the Windows machine that SQL Server is
> on, then they can steal everything on the server anyway.
> Normal users can not do this.
> So, you need to trust your administrators.
> Anyway, even if there was a "separate" password, how would your applicatio
ns
> access the database? They would need the password, which means it has to b
e
> stored somewhere, which means the administrator could steal it from there
> (eg from the client application, or by monitoring the traffic that goes in
to
> SQL Server).
> Cheers
> Ken
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
> "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> news:407B4E73.682C@.centrin.net.id...
> : You didn't get my question, what I mean is if your database which you
> : have protect with the algorithm and re-install by somebody in their
> : server, then all your data will be seen and access using their 'sa'
> : login, so where's the protection ?
> :
> :
> :
> : Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:
> : >
> : > "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> : > news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
> : > > 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
> : > > database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
> : > > another server without any protection.
> : > >
> : > > 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance
> while
> : > > we process large amount of data
> : >
> : > see below...
> : >
> : > > I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and eas
y
> to
> : > > maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
> : > > excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
> : > > specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
> : > > mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
> : > >
> : > > Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be
> that's
> : > > much better than let it open.
> : >
> : > Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, S
QL
> : > stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools'
> that
> : > are available on the net.
> : > So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
> : > (public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a fil
e.
> A
> : > single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained,
> useless.
> : >
> : > Cheers,
> :|||> what is necessary to do for encrypt data?
>
Checkout www.database-encryption.com
www.sql-shield.com
ms sql server 2000 security too weak ?
It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
, why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
is too simple, just copy and read it.
Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
Best regards,
Ridwan
PemBukuan.Com
http://www.as3000.com
"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
> , why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
> copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
> read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
> at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
> is too simple, just copy and read it.
> Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
> technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
> Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
- NTFS security
- Data Encryption
- Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
easily.
b.t.w. there is nearly no protection against harddisk access by a
technician. You can't blame MS for that. But data encryption by the
application that uses MSDE is a solution...
|||1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
another server without any protection.
2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance while
we process large amount of data
I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy to
maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be that's
much better than let it open.
> You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
> - NTFS security
> - Data Encryption
> - Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
> easily.
> b.t.w. there is nearly no protection against harddisk access by a
> technician. You can't blame MS for that. But data encryption by the
> application that uses MSDE is a solution...
|||"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
> 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
> database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
> another server without any protection.
> 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance while
> we process large amount of data
see below...
> I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy to
> maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
> excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
> specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
> mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
> Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be that's
> much better than let it open.
Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools' that
are available on the net.
So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
(public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file. A
single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained, useless.
Cheers,
|||hi
what is necessary to do for encrypt data?
atte,
Hernn Castelo
UTN Buenos Aires
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS)" <egbert_nierop@.nospam.invalid> escribi en el mensaje
news:uj3L1IFIEHA.3356@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
> , why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
> copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
> read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
> at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
> is too simple, just copy and read it.
> Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
> technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
> Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
- NTFS security
- Data Encryption
- Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
easily.
b.t.w. there is nearly no protection against harddisk access by a
technician. You can't blame MS for that. But data encryption by the
application that uses MSDE is a solution...
|||> "Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS)" <egbert_nierop@.nospam.invalid> escribi en
el mensaje
> news:uj3L1IFIEHA.3356@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
> - NTFS security
> - Data Encryption
> - Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
> easily.
"Hernn Castelo" <hhh@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23KshfkMIEHA.3476@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> hi
> what is necessary to do for encrypt data?
> --
> atte,
> Hernn Castelo
> UTN Buenos Aires
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..
Your application can encrypt data. If you have .NET you can use Rijnhaeve
(If I spell correctly) and such. .NET samples show how to do it.
With C++ (7.0 and higher) there are encryption templates as well.
|||You didn't get my question, what I mean is if your database which you
have protect with the algorithm and re-install by somebody in their
server, then all your data will be seen and access using their 'sa'
login, so where's the protection ?
Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:
> "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
> see below...
>
> Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
> stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools' that
> are available on the net.
> So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
> (public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file. A
> single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained, useless.
> Cheers,
|||If the user is an administrator of the SQL Server, then they can steal your
MDF files. But then, they can do anything anyway.
If the user is an administrator of the Windows machine that SQL Server is
on, then they can steal everything on the server anyway.
Normal users can not do this.
So, you need to trust your administrators.
Anyway, even if there was a "separate" password, how would your applications
access the database? They would need the password, which means it has to be
stored somewhere, which means the administrator could steal it from there
(eg from the client application, or by monitoring the traffic that goes into
SQL Server).
Cheers
Ken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:407B4E73.682C@.centrin.net.id...
: You didn't get my question, what I mean is if your database which you
: have protect with the algorithm and re-install by somebody in their
: server, then all your data will be seen and access using their 'sa'
: login, so where's the protection ?
:
:
:
: Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:
: >
: > "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
: > news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
: > > 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
: > > database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
: > > another server without any protection.
: > >
: > > 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance
while
: > > we process large amount of data
: >
: > see below...
: >
: > > I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy
to
: > > maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
: > > excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
: > > specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
: > > mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
: > >
: > > Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be
that's
: > > much better than let it open.
: >
: > Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
: > stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools'
that
: > are available on the net.
: > So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
: > (public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file.
A
: > single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained,
useless.
: >
: > Cheers,
:
|||Sometimes trusting people too full is risky to the company, it should be
a double checking procedure and control by two authorized person.
About the monitoring data traffic is not very easy do that if the
application using a native database driver, except ODBC.
My suggestion is when attaching the MDF files will require the original
serial number of ms.sql server 2000 where it was created, I think at
least this is another way to protect the MDF files, even somebody or the
kick out administrator copy it, then it's useless, they should know the
serial number to access the MDF.
What do you think ?
brgs,
Ridwan
Ken Schaefer wrote:
> If the user is an administrator of the SQL Server, then they can steal your
> MDF files. But then, they can do anything anyway.
> If the user is an administrator of the Windows machine that SQL Server is
> on, then they can steal everything on the server anyway.
> Normal users can not do this.
> So, you need to trust your administrators.
> Anyway, even if there was a "separate" password, how would your applications
> access the database? They would need the password, which means it has to be
> stored somewhere, which means the administrator could steal it from there
> (eg from the client application, or by monitoring the traffic that goes into
> SQL Server).
> Cheers
> Ken
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> news:407B4E73.682C@.centrin.net.id...
> : You didn't get my question, what I mean is if your database which you
> : have protect with the algorithm and re-install by somebody in their
> : server, then all your data will be seen and access using their 'sa'
> : login, so where's the protection ?
> :
> :
> :
> : Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:
> : >
> : > "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> : > news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
> : > > 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
> : > > database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
> : > > another server without any protection.
> : > >
> : > > 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance
> while
> : > > we process large amount of data
> : >
> : > see below...
> : >
> : > > I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy
> to
> : > > maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
> : > > excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
> : > > specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
> : > > mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
> : > >
> : > > Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be
> that's
> : > > much better than let it open.
> : >
> : > Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
> : > stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools'
> that
> : > are available on the net.
> : > So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
> : > (public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file.
> A
> : > single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained,
> useless.
> : >
> : > Cheers,
> :
|||> what is necessary to do for encrypt data?
>
Checkout www.database-encryption.com
www.sql-shield.com
sql
, why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
is too simple, just copy and read it.
Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
Best regards,
Ridwan
PemBukuan.Com
http://www.as3000.com
"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
> , why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
> copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
> read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
> at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
> is too simple, just copy and read it.
> Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
> technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
> Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
- NTFS security
- Data Encryption
- Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
easily.
b.t.w. there is nearly no protection against harddisk access by a
technician. You can't blame MS for that. But data encryption by the
application that uses MSDE is a solution...
|||1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
another server without any protection.
2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance while
we process large amount of data
I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy to
maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be that's
much better than let it open.
> You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
> - NTFS security
> - Data Encryption
> - Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
> easily.
> b.t.w. there is nearly no protection against harddisk access by a
> technician. You can't blame MS for that. But data encryption by the
> application that uses MSDE is a solution...
|||"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
> 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
> database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
> another server without any protection.
> 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance while
> we process large amount of data
see below...
> I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy to
> maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
> excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
> specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
> mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
> Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be that's
> much better than let it open.
Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools' that
are available on the net.
So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
(public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file. A
single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained, useless.
Cheers,
|||hi
what is necessary to do for encrypt data?
atte,
Hernn Castelo
UTN Buenos Aires
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS)" <egbert_nierop@.nospam.invalid> escribi en el mensaje
news:uj3L1IFIEHA.3356@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> It seems the authority for DBA is too much to control the safety of .mdf
> , why not add an additional password or key to protect it, if someone
> copy the .mdf files and install to a new sql server service, they can
> read everything using sa facility, is it worse than ms.access ?
> at least ms.access still need some extra job to crack it, but the .mdf
> is too simple, just copy and read it.
> Especially the MSDE version in one single computer, even the hardware
> technician can duplicate and sell your important data.
> Anyone have solution for this security problem ?
You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
- NTFS security
- Data Encryption
- Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
easily.
b.t.w. there is nearly no protection against harddisk access by a
technician. You can't blame MS for that. But data encryption by the
application that uses MSDE is a solution...
|||> "Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS)" <egbert_nierop@.nospam.invalid> escribi en
el mensaje
> news:uj3L1IFIEHA.3356@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> news:4079FBD2.559B@.centrin.net.id...
> You have a choice. Have MSDE run, on a reserved account
> - NTFS security
> - Data Encryption
> - Also, you can store data on a raw partition, that cannot be copied so
> easily.
"Hernn Castelo" <hhh@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23KshfkMIEHA.3476@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> hi
> what is necessary to do for encrypt data?
> --
> atte,
> Hernn Castelo
> UTN Buenos Aires
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..
Your application can encrypt data. If you have .NET you can use Rijnhaeve
(If I spell correctly) and such. .NET samples show how to do it.
With C++ (7.0 and higher) there are encryption templates as well.
|||You didn't get my question, what I mean is if your database which you
have protect with the algorithm and re-install by somebody in their
server, then all your data will be seen and access using their 'sa'
login, so where's the protection ?
Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:
> "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
> see below...
>
> Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
> stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools' that
> are available on the net.
> So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
> (public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file. A
> single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained, useless.
> Cheers,
|||If the user is an administrator of the SQL Server, then they can steal your
MDF files. But then, they can do anything anyway.
If the user is an administrator of the Windows machine that SQL Server is
on, then they can steal everything on the server anyway.
Normal users can not do this.
So, you need to trust your administrators.
Anyway, even if there was a "separate" password, how would your applications
access the database? They would need the password, which means it has to be
stored somewhere, which means the administrator could steal it from there
(eg from the client application, or by monitoring the traffic that goes into
SQL Server).
Cheers
Ken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:407B4E73.682C@.centrin.net.id...
: You didn't get my question, what I mean is if your database which you
: have protect with the algorithm and re-install by somebody in their
: server, then all your data will be seen and access using their 'sa'
: login, so where's the protection ?
:
:
:
: Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:
: >
: > "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
: > news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
: > > 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
: > > database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
: > > another server without any protection.
: > >
: > > 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance
while
: > > we process large amount of data
: >
: > see below...
: >
: > > I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy
to
: > > maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
: > > excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
: > > specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
: > > mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
: > >
: > > Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be
that's
: > > much better than let it open.
: >
: > Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
: > stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools'
that
: > are available on the net.
: > So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
: > (public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file.
A
: > single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained,
useless.
: >
: > Cheers,
:
|||Sometimes trusting people too full is risky to the company, it should be
a double checking procedure and control by two authorized person.
About the monitoring data traffic is not very easy do that if the
application using a native database driver, except ODBC.
My suggestion is when attaching the MDF files will require the original
serial number of ms.sql server 2000 where it was created, I think at
least this is another way to protect the MDF files, even somebody or the
kick out administrator copy it, then it's useless, they should know the
serial number to access the MDF.
What do you think ?
brgs,
Ridwan
Ken Schaefer wrote:
> If the user is an administrator of the SQL Server, then they can steal your
> MDF files. But then, they can do anything anyway.
> If the user is an administrator of the Windows machine that SQL Server is
> on, then they can steal everything on the server anyway.
> Normal users can not do this.
> So, you need to trust your administrators.
> Anyway, even if there was a "separate" password, how would your applications
> access the database? They would need the password, which means it has to be
> stored somewhere, which means the administrator could steal it from there
> (eg from the client application, or by monitoring the traffic that goes into
> SQL Server).
> Cheers
> Ken
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> news:407B4E73.682C@.centrin.net.id...
> : You didn't get my question, what I mean is if your database which you
> : have protect with the algorithm and re-install by somebody in their
> : server, then all your data will be seen and access using their 'sa'
> : login, so where's the protection ?
> :
> :
> :
> : Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS) wrote:
> : >
> : > "RW" <goldbase@.centrin.net.id> wrote in message
> : > news:407AB799.4F6F@.centrin.net.id...
> : > > 1. using NTFS security still allow to get in, and duplicate the
> : > > database, this is not why I mean, but they can copy and open it in
> : > > another server without any protection.
> : > >
> : > > 2. using data encryption of course will slow down the performance
> while
> : > > we process large amount of data
> : >
> : > see below...
> : >
> : > > I am not blaming MS, actually the sql server is quite a good and easy
> to
> : > > maintain database, only we are so curious, why other user data like
> : > > excel spreadsheet, word, access can have their own password, and
> : > > specially the most important data container (sql server) open like a
> : > > mall and welcome in, u just login in as 'sa' and u get everything.
> : > >
> : > > Why not MS add an additional login password as an option, may be
> that's
> : > > much better than let it open.
> : >
> : > Applying a single password is really a nope-operation. for instance, SQL
> : > stored procs can be encrypted, but they can be decripted using 'tools'
> that
> : > are available on the net.
> : > So that's why the 'slow' operation, that is a 3 key-algorithm
> : > (public/private/session) is the ONLY viable solution to safegard a file.
> A
> : > single password with 'xor' encryption on a file is as explained,
> useless.
> : >
> : > Cheers,
> :
|||> what is necessary to do for encrypt data?
>
Checkout www.database-encryption.com
www.sql-shield.com
sql
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)