OT: Re: Confidential data

From: Kenneth A Kauffman <kkauffman_at_nospam.headfog.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:05:22 GMT
Message-ID: <CGCra.63950$xB4.1503318@news2.east.cox.net>

"Hans Forbrich" <forbrich_at_telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3EAE875B.CABA7F8D_at_telusplanet.net...
> Niall Litchfield wrote:
>
> > Yes it is, read up on DBMS_OBFUSCATION_TOOLKIT
> >
> > I personally think that this is nearly always an indication that you
have
> > hired the wrong DBA, or have the wrong management. It says that you
trust
> > the guy enough to allow him to randomly update,delete etc your data at
will,
> > but not enough to let him see what he is doing. If you put people in
> > positions of trust and then don't trust them you are normally asking for
> > trouble.
>
> Generally true. But there are exceptions to every rule. Although others
> exists, two groups of people that may need to be in a position of trust
without
> being properly vetted: 1) a consultant temporarily contracted as a
> specialist/DBA, 2) support personnel
>
>
>
>
>

I believe this again be a drop in management responsibility. Consultants should be under a non-disclosure agreement. Not setting up a "legal net" underneath themselves is asking for trouble.

ken k Received on Tue Apr 29 2003 - 17:05:22 CDT