Re: tough choices

From: Larry <Larry_at_nospam.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 04:47:12 GMT
Message-ID: <kd7Dc.5276$OT6.3949561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>

Mark,

Thank you for being honest in your answer.

One of the reasons that I asked is because frankly, I really didn't know the answer (I only have a base of experience with a very specific set of customers ... although over about 13 years now).

The other is that earlier in this thread, a claim was made that DB2 relied on Tivoli to provide "even the most basic security". Now ... I know we've beaten it to death already ... and I don't want to continue to do so. But ... as so frequently happens in the IT world, this boils down to semantics. I propose that DB2 UDB (without Tivoli) does have much in the way of "basic" rdbms security authorization and authentication support. It may be a different implementation than Oracle. But it's there. And I also submit that "basic" covers the security needs of the vast majority of users and companies (if not more than that). I also know that when a requirement is brought forward to IBM, and it is a frequently requested requirement ... it will likely find its way into the product ... sooner rather than later if the market deems it important enough (as I'm sure is the case with Oracle also).

Larry Edelstein

Mark Townsend wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>

>> Question though. How many customers in reality have security 
>> requirements that are this granular and that need to be met based on 
>> only an IP address coming in?
>>

>
> At that level of granularity, just a few. And in fact, some of them
> don't even exist :-)
>
> "As I was going down the stair, I saw a man who wasn't there. He wasn't
> there again today; He must be from the ..."
>
> However, many companies have policies over what data can and cannot be
> accessed when on a wireless network or internet via dial up or VPN (as
> opposed to the intranet). I know Oracle does for some of the more
> significant IP.
>
Received on Fri Jun 25 2004 - 23:47:12 CDT