Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" <derby-user@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Reply-To: <msegel@segel.com>
From: <derby@segel.com>
Sender: "Michael Segel" <msegel@segel.com>
To: "'Derby Discussion'" <derby-user@db.apache.org>,
	<msegel@segel.com>
Subject: RE: User/password encryption and deployment
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:29:03 -0500
Organization: MSCC
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <20070616053142.E614652534@dbrack01.segel.com>
Thread-Index: Acev1YBf6WM0fVLtTY2GUjnQFOQZnQAADHaQAABRDqA=
Message-Id: <20070616053649.34CA452536@dbrack01.segel.com>

Just to follow up to my own post...
http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.2/adminguide/tadminapps811695.html)

Unless my tired eyes deceive me...  (Its 12:30am and its been a long
day...),

This deals with encryption of the database and not encryption between the
client and the database.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Segel [mailto:msegel@segel.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:24 AM
> To: 'Derby Discussion'
> Subject: RE: User/password encryption and deployment
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Shannon [mailto:bill.shannon@sun.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:04 AM
> > To: Derby Discussion
> > Subject: Re: User/password encryption and deployment
> >
> > derby@segel.com wrote:
> > > Maybe I am missing something but what exactly are you encrypting?
> > >
> > > SSL is transmission from client to server over the net.
> > >
> > > Derby is Cloudscape till 2008 when IBM cuts loose.
> > >
> > > So are you trying to use an encryption data type?
> > >
> > > And how strong of an encryption do you want?
> >
> > I think the idea is to protect the communication between the client
> > and the server so that passwords aren't sent in the clear.  None of
> > the data being stored in the database is being encrypted, just the
> > client/server communication.
> >
> > It *is* 2007.  Isn't this pretty much standard by now?
> 
> Uhm well, one would think.
> 
> Which is why I'm a little suspect that the *only* way to do encryption on
> the wire is to be forced to bring in IBM's JCE.
> 
> I'll admit I haven't looked at this issue in depth, just trying to
> understand the use case and see if its beyond encrypting the session ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
>