Re: _cipher API vs Qc3Encrypt/Qc3DecryptData vs SQL

["M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>]

Mark,

 No, it would not defeat the purpose of the encryption at 
all.  Since it's a trigger I would have the option of adding my 
application logic to allow only those authorized.

 Also, if the tape containing the DB file disappears, the raw data 
is still encrypted.

 It would be a *vast* improvement over what we have now.  Currently, 
the file format must change.  Therefore, in some way, the application 
must change.  A read trigger would allow me to keep the same file 
format by separating the encrypted field(s) into another file and the 
trigger would decrypt the data if allowed and would map the decrypted 
data (or even some error text!) back to the triggering program's 
input buffer.  The original application need have no knowledge that 
anything different happened since encryption was implemented.

 I don't really understand why IBM imposed this limitation.

 -mark


At 3/26/08 09:56 AM, you wrote:
> But that would totally defeat the purpose of encrypting the data in
> certain fields, wouldn't it? Once such a "read trigger" was in place, if
> it could decrypt the data and return that data in the buffer, then any
> program that accesses (reads) the file (even DSPPFM, etc.) would then
> see the unencrypted data! :-o
>
>  > M. Lazarus wrote:
> > Bruce,
> >
> >   Are there any plans that you know of to allow changing a read
> > trigger buffer?  This limitation is a *major* barrier to retrofitting
> > encryption onto existing databases.
> >
> >   -mark