If your basic security is just a DBC or table password that may be reasonable.
But if your security includes protecting the data from someone doing a
modi comm fileName.Dbf or opening it with another tool to prevent
voyeurs this would require significant changes to the core product.

One of the things that I like about Fox's (based on all the pre-existing applications)
is that they retained the Dbf's and did not encapsulate all the tables and indexes
into a data server such as Access or SQL server. Once everything is
encapsulated into a data server IMHO our speed is going to be a thing
of the past.

The 2 projects you lost were lost to what solution?
=================================
>>>We lost 2 projects because of the problem alone. For us as developers, it does not matter to us, but a lot client are saying that there data are not secured with VFP DBC/Tables that's why they are asking for it.
>>
>>Jess, I am confused. They didn't give you the project because DBFs weren't secure? Why not, then, use SQL Server as the back end? If security is such an issue for them, it could have been solved that way.
>
>Due to economic concern Menachem. That's the reason why we are asking MS to include Basic Security on VFP DBC/Tables. And we want native VFP data for speed purposes.