Re: Encrypted Fields

From: Michael Gentry (mgentr..asslight.net)
Date: Tue Feb 10 2009 - 14:07:05 EST

  • Next message: Laurent Marchal: "Auditing SQL queries"

    That's an interesting idea. It still does the same job -- keeps a
    version associated with the value, but perhaps more elegantly (or at
    least fewer columns). I'll have to ponder that a bit to see if I can
    think of any glaring gotchas with doing it that way, but I'm not aware
    of anything offhand.

    You reminded me of something else. When using encryption, your fields
    are going to need to be larger than normal. For example, a 9-digit
    social security number will need to be more than a varchar2(9) in the
    database.

    Thanks!

    mrg

    On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienen..mail.com> wrote:
    > It's been pointed out to me that you don't need a separate version column.
    > More than likely you'll be encoding the encrypted value, and you can
    > prefix that value with the version.
    >
    > For example, ':' is not a valid Base64 character, so the encryption
    > string could just be prefixed with the key version if you encode in
    > Base64.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Feb 10 2009 - 14:07:38 EST