Hi Mike,

Are they going to encrypt those records after migrating to MS SQL Server/.NET? e.g. Card Number and its Verification number or whatever they wish to encrypt.

Can they not encrypt the records even if it was stored in a DBF? Yes its true, an unencrypted data in a DBF is very easy to read. But encryption is not the only solution for this, at least they have to secure first where DATA was stored and have an honest DB Administrator. Aside from this use end to end hardware encryption like Thales Encryption to encrypt communication from host to client especially when there is a branch to HQ access of information.

If its not encrypted after migrating to MS SQL Server/.NET, a dishonest DB Administrator can always read and get those sensitive information though.

I can't see the logic here "SOLELY BECAUSE SENSITIVE FINANCIAL DATA IS CONTAINED IN DBF'S."






>The company where I am working now is going through a major effort to comply with new privacy and security requirements mandated by Visa and MasterCard. One of the things they have had to do is buy a $45,000 encryption gizmo SOLELY BECAUSE SENSITIVE FINANCIAL DATA IS CONTAINED IN DBF'S. As you might imagine, they are migrating everything to SQL Server and VB.NET as fast as they can.
>
>
>>First, I'll help you out a little. DBF's don't lend themselves well to large systems. For the last 10 yrs or so many IT depts of large corporations have put VFP/DBase, etc. on the not approved list. DBF's being the main reason.
>>
>>For the rest, you're going to have to do some keyboarding yourself. Try finding a comparison of SQL Server, Oracle, DB2 and tell me how Foxpro fits into that equation.
>>
>>
>>>>Unfortunately that show's your ignorance about technology. To compare VFP to Oracle, SQL Server, etc., is foolhardy. But just for my edification, what praytell would cause you to compare the two?
>>>>
>>>>>Thank you. I'm retired, so I'll keep on plunking away on VFP because I know it better than other languages and it is all I need for what I do. But on the other hand, I see a remarkable development tool being cast aside and that bothers me. I have always viewed VFP as a possible Oracle killer, but MS never went after Oracle which to this day baffles me.
>>>
>>>Well then, I suppose I'm ignorant. I had always kicked around the idea of VFP evolving into the world's best database platform and eventually a VFP version for larger systems that could take on Oracle head to head would be offered. Please, take the time to explain the difference, other than PC/mainframe, to me.