<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wikidot="http://www.wikidot.com/rss-namespace">

	<channel>
		<title>Comments for page &quot;Database Encryption&quot;</title>
		<link>http://wiki.neodatis.org/database-encryption/comments/show</link>
		<description></description>
				<copyright></copyright>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:05:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		
					<item>
				<guid>http://wiki.neodatis.org/database-encryption/comments/show#post-94513</guid>
				<title>Re: Variable block size</title>
				<link>http://wiki.neodatis.org/database-encryption/comments/show#post-94513</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:59:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>gslender</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>70778</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>I think there is a way around this problem - you would just treat all read/writes as if they are in blocks.</p> <p>Example: if you had 4 byte blocks, a read at pos 3 would be in the 1st block. The next read at pos 5 would be in the 2nd. An update of bytes read from pos 3 to pos 5 would 1st re-write 1st block (read all 1-4 bytes, update 3-4 bytes and then write all 1-4 back) and then write the 2nd block (read all 5-8 bytes, update byte 5 and then write all 5-8 back).</p> <p>I would expect this overhead to be slow and sure its complex, but I don't see a major problem.</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://wiki.neodatis.org/database-encryption/comments/show#post-94349</guid>
				<title>Variable block size</title>
				<link>http://wiki.neodatis.org/database-encryption/comments/show#post-94349</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:41:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>Olivier Smadja</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>49395</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>One of the biggest issue is that <strong>ODB</strong> does not use fixed blocked to write object data and sometimes <strong>ODB</strong> access directly one part of the object data to do "in place update". I am not sure how encryption would work with that characteristic.</p> <p>The next file format version of <strong>ODB</strong> will have fixed size blocks.</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
				</channel>
</rss>