you'd be surprised how many didn't know.

That dbfs are by nature insecure? I suppose it's possible that people don't know, but I don't think it's a common characteristic on UT.

I'm referring to DBFs being used as a data store.

Would you say that NET is insecure because it can store data in xml files? Or would you say that xml files are insecure?

Let me ask you something - I am not a DBA by trade, but I know my fair share. And I think I have a pretty good idea how they'd respond to that. Do you mind if I post that statement (as is) on a Windows Server forum, to see the replies?

They won't have heard of it- it's not a DBA issue. Effectively you set folder/file security for your data files to one specified user or privilege. Other users are no longer able to access the files directly, because they don't have privileges. Then you cause your app to impersonate the privileged user, meaning it is able to access the files. Look for
"impersonate" on the fox wiki for examples. You can use it for SQL Server access as well, fwiw. ;-) Yeah, it's one of those "trick shots" I used to talk about ;-) and it would not be "intellectually honest" to assert that it's an argument that dbfs are secure. ;-) Plus there's all the other comparisons involving dbfs that remain compelling. But if you think it's a good idea to post this on a DBA forum, go ahead.