Here's the actual assertion:

That said, security is an issue that is - more often than not - a real concern and a requirement. And, it goes without saying that Fox cannot address that need.

Right....and I generally agree with that statement.

I'm going to state this again: Fox was never architected with security in mind. When Fox was designed to do something, it usually did it very very well. This is NOT one of those instances.


Other data stores (Oracle, SQL Server) are architected with security in mind. As JVP acknowledged, you can build some kind of solution that might get by in some avenues, but that's about it. Most security-conscious I.S. shops would never accept DBFs as secure.

I'm sorry, I find nothing inflammatory about that statement.