>>>>>>Greetings,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>These links say it all:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=Z1O1GX5OZ4VR4QSNDLRSKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=205600157
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9055858&intsrc=hm_list
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Bill,
>>>>>Probably I'm not seeing the trees because of the forest. What is there in those links explaining why one should use Oracle?
>>>>>Cetin
>>>>
>>>>Cetin,
>>>>
>>>>I am just stating the reason I use Oracle. While it is just as vulnerable as SQL Server to SQL injection, all the mass SQL injection attacks seem to occur on SQL Server.
>>>
>>>Because SQL Server is used more often :o)
>>>And because it is so easy to use that all people that think they could do some programming write a vulnerable code.
>>>Vulnerability dosn't goes to SQL Server BackEnd but to FrontEnd code. It is matter how you manage your backend. Injections a bad design of the frontend queries, not the BackEnd security.
>>>If you want I could give you my SQL Server IP address and try to break it to it.
>>
>>Oracle is the #1 database in the world so that argument is moot. There were 70,000 websites hacked so does that mean it was because of poor programming on all those websites or could it be blamed on the common denominator?
>
>Yep,
>I am pretty sure that 50% of these sites are just semi-manufactured ones, they use the same code, just have different pictures in it.
>I'm not telling you that ORACLE is POOR, just telling you that SQL Server is GOOD database.
>I don't know from where you get that ORACLE is #1 database, but I am pretty sure that if you search a little more you will find that ACCESS is most used Database, grrrrr.

For mission-critical databases? I don't think so. You would have think people would have learned their lession in 2003 but fo some reason they prefer to kowtow to the MS god.