On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Olivier Mascia <om@...> wrote:

> Le 8 nov. 2010 à 08:06, Roman Rokytskyy a écrit :
>
>> I think there is market for in-database encryption (probably small), basically the case when people want to protect the data from a casual look (embedded use of Firebird, dictionaries, etc.).
>
> Best handled at the application level then.  Cloud computing?  Not wanting your data unencrypted "over there"?  Simply want to obfuscate or encrypt some data stored on a DVD?  Nothing stops a developer to encrypt some of the data before storing it in the DB.  Details are completely application dependent.  Firebird out of the (in)equation.
>
> ( And though these are rare events, you can fix the database structure of such a DB with ordinary tools or let other people do it for you: without exposing the secured data. )

I only share my thoughts about the encryption plugin , it should be
generic and we should be able to use
other algorithms /providers if needed (openssl , gpg )
http://api.kde.org/kdesupport-api/kdesupport-apidocs/qca/html/
also my basic requirements is for the firebird channel to be
encryptable without the need for a vpn/ssh something like is done in a
tls/ssl comunication
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/ssl-tcp.html

>
> Best,
> —
> Olivier Mascia
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>