On Jan 10, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Ken Dibble <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nor would hashing each entry separately prevent them from being deleted.
> Deleting an entry indicating that so-and-so accessed such-and-such a record
> at such-and-such a time would be a pretty serious form of tampering.
There are ways to deal with this, such as hash the previous record with
the current record so that if a record is deleted, the hash won't match. You
won't recover the data, buy you'll know that a change was made.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
