On 22 November 2017 at 17:03, John Hughes <j...@atlantech.com> wrote:
> On 22/11/17 14:18, Aldemir Akpinar wrote: > > > That's routine. Few readers read everything that can be read. For example, >> look at postgres. Its binary file format reveals quite a bit more than you >> can get using psql, and by design: The writer and binary format are >> intended for storing things quickly and reliably, and the reader for >> reading what was stored. Anything that's in the file but wasn't stored by >> instruction of an SQL user is uninteresting to psql, and the file format >> writer has no particular reason to avoid storing other information. >> >> >> >> > Could you elaborate why are you comparing a relational database system > where its files must be binary with a logging system where its files > doesn't need to binary? > > > Need? Nothing "needs" to be in binary[*]. It's a design decision. Do > the advantages of a structured format (mostly speed) override the > disadvantages (higher costs for access if the reader software is > unavailable? > > [*] or, to put it another way -- *everything on a computer is in binary*. > "Text" files are binary. The question is how easy is it to decode the file > format. It seems obvious that a "text" file is easy to decode, everyone > knows the format (but what character set is it in?), but don't forget that > the "text" file is stored on a filesystem, which is itself a complicated > "binary" structure. When you're talking about "forensics", i.e. looking at > something that may be broken in exciting ways, it's quite naïve to assume > that you can just mount the filesystem (which one?) and use cat, vi, grep > or whatever. > > That's still not the answer to my question!
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng