| ▲ | Philip-J-Fry an hour ago | |
Right, encryption would protect the data. But still, at the end of the day you're trusting the permission model of the database. Encryption won't prevent you updating a row or deleting a row if the database permission model failed. | ||
| ▲ | staticassertion an hour ago | parent [-] | |
Well, I think we basically agree? My suggestion is merely that a database holding financial data should have more than a single layer of security. Granting direct access to a database is a pretty scary thing. A simple example would be that any vulnerability in the database is directly accessible, even just by placing a broker in between users and the database I'd likely start to feel a lot better, and now I'd have a primitive for layering on additional security measures. Encryption is an extremely powerful measure for this use case. If the data does not need to be indexed, you could literally take over the database process entirely and still not have access, it definitely doesn't rely on the permission model of the db because the keys would be brokered elsewhere. | ||