4 ms·
The problem is that if someone has access to query at all, they can abuse it. How do you limit to specific search strings? Is that a thing?
by Loughla 2y ago
The problem is that if someone has access to query at all, they can abuse it.
How do you limit to specific search strings? Is that a thing?
- phkahler 2y agoAn interface that accepts only certain things - not raw SQL - and only returns whats needed for the task at hand. Logging of who asked for what is good too but is not preventative.
- liontwist 2y agoDatabase roles are a thing
- throwawayqqq11 2y agoBut DB roles arent case specific. Someone with access to personal records should only be able to query relevant and legal information about the current case at hand. This requires oversight.
- liontwist 2y agoYes. Ultimately I agree this is a social and legal construct, and technology cannot feasibly be configured to enforce it
- rbanffy 2y agoOne of the very few good reasons for in-database logic, such as views and stored procedures is rule enforcement - this allow queries to return only the data you are authorized to see. Doing this across multiple databases on multiple organizations is challenging, but, where I live, we all went through that with GDPR and we are quite good at preventing unauthorized access. In the end, it feels like nobody (and nothing) can see the whole dataset.
- Muromec 2y agoI the industry, we have a monthly refresher training to not forget tne simple fact that checking the balance of your ex account on a production database, however tempting it is, will meam you dont work in the industry anymore
- rbanffy 2y agoThere are lots of ways to flag abuse - the most basic one is tagging each access with a valid authorization for that specific data. Using a law enforcement example, if I am investigating a drug-related crime, a search for data on a record that was never searched before or after (or only searched by me) is a very good predictor for abuse.