Re: i5/OS Encryption

[Tom Liotta <qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

jlowary wrote:

> type of encryption we were looking at).  We were going to have to create a 
> supplemental file (yuck!)

Minor note... Isn't this one of the major points of using a 
relational database? Creation and use of 'related' tables should be 
'relatively' easy.

With some thought on how views (LFs) might be related, a view should 
be possible that results in more or less the same record format as 
was originally used, perhaps resulting in few program changes. 
Authority to the view could be controlled. A UDF or other facility 
might provide a decrypted value. Lots of alternatives seem possible 
on the output side.

On the input/update side, only actual entries or changes to columns 
needing encryption would get attention. And triggers might be the 
best choice.

But then, all of that assumes a useful database definition from the 
beginning. Without that... yuck!

>  that would hold the encrypted number and replace 
> the number in the file with a key or RRN back to the data. 

Tom Liotta