Re: is it possible to edit archivelog files?

Give me a hex editor and a week or so, and I could hack anything in your redo stream. Probably easier to just hack your other systems and do an rm *.dbf, but yes, it would be possible to hack the archive logs.

Your man has a point: believing that Oracle is immensely complex ('tis true), most people would say it was fairly secure. But that's security through obscurity, and it won't do when millions are at stake. You need other systems (such as encrypted file systems, secure server rooms, etc etc) and procedures (supply a DNA sample before loging on, perchance?!) to achieve what he asks.

Regards
HJR "Wijbrand Pauw" <w.pauw_at_xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:Xns92AD6DC30E3ECwpauwxs4allnl_at_194.109.6.74...
> Hi,
>
> I work at al large bank and we want to get on Unix-Oracle the highest
> possible classification on availability and integrety.
>
> You all know the expressions that one fool can ask more questions than 100
> wise man can answer, well than our security officer is a fool.....
>
> He now wants to know if it is possible to edit/change an archivelogfile
and
> then apply it to an standby database.
> We are doing a checksum on the files on the production and standby machine
> before applying, for what that's worth.
> He wants to know because he wants to be very sure that someone can't fake
a
> disaster on production, going to the standby database, bringing it up and
> there are for example new financial transactions (there will be over
> $50.000.000.000,- transferred every day) which weren't in the orignal
> production environment (that one is for example completly destroyed).
>
>
> I know that this sounds perhaps a bit silly or overdone but they want to
> know.
> So is there a chance that someone can hack the archivelog files and the
file
> still be accepted by the standby database?
>
> Can you think of other potential dangers of changing the standby database
> without being noticed (of course the database will remain in standby mode
> but it is also used in ready only)?
>
> Thanks for your reply!
>
> Regards,
>
> Wijbrand
Received on Sun Oct 20 2002 - 05:26:41 CDT