Hi,

At November-04-10, 10:32 AM, Geoff Worboys wrote:

> Daniel Rail wrote:
>>> And most people wanting encrypted or password-protected
>>> databases wants that because they want to distribute their
>>> database to others but do not want they to see the data
>>> from outside their applications.

>> I know that it used to be the most common argument. But, for
>> us it is not the case. We need to be able to provide database
>> encryption and encryption over-the-wire(LAN or WAN) for our
>> customers and to be able to get nour software fully certified
>> for the United States Healthcare "Meaningful Use" Medicare
>> certification.

> Are you saying that Windows EFS or other full system encryption
> is not able to pass such certification?

Apparently, at the moment it will pass, but as third party to our
application. And, it might be a route that we will be taking.

> [There are similar third party solutions for over-the-wire
> encryption.]

We are looking at some, but an internal solution would still be
preferred.

> Are you also saying that the certification would be content
> with an application that used (for example) AES to encrypt it's
> database pages - even though private data may escape the system
> through temporary files, system paging or other such application
> and operating system features?

At the moment, for phase 1 of the certification, it appears that the
answer is yes. But, I can't comment about phase 2 or 3, since no
proper documentation has been released yet. And, the latest that I've
heard is that they some of the phase 1 specs will be more stringent in
phase 2 and phase 3.

> This is exactly the sort of application that I thought should
> warrant serious security - the idea that "as long as it looks
> good" is good enough is something of a concern.

I do have to agree with you. But, just using EFS or Truecrypt, gives
the same level of encryption.

>> [...]
>> I think that there should be a developer can develop their
>> own plugin for database encryption and encryption over-the-wire
>> in Firebird. At first, the Firebird team wouldn't necessarily
>> create the new plugins, but just the facility(API) for someone
>> to implement their own. [...]

> I'll let the active developers address this aspect, I suspect
> that Firebird wouldn't be far off being able to do exactly
> that - let you write/supply your own encryption if all you want
> is the database pages encrypted.

I could see if the encryption/decryption of pages can be done whenever
they are read or written to(disk and/or memory). And, maybe if
required a plugin API for any other disk reading/writing(i.e.:
temp/sort files). But, there will always be a moment in time when the
data would not be encrypted within the Firebird process. And, for
sure, it will most likely reduce the performance of Firebird, compared
to not using encryption, but that is the cost of using encryption.

> That people would use this to pretend to have reasonable
> security agitates the pedant in me, but I guess that's my
> problem and not yours.

You are correct. I'm simply trying to make it easier for our customers
to install our software, although we do the installs most of the time.
But, to be able to have an automated install with almost no human
interaction would be better.

--
Best regards,
Daniel Rail
Senior Software Engineer
ACCRA Solutions Inc. (www.accra.ca)
ACCRA Med Software Inc. (www.filopto.com)