Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?

Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
-no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will simply
be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
password and ready, will have access to the data.
does Sql_Server have safety?
-has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the this
machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot use
MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in the
same position.
I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because it
reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
Sql-Server.Assuming the situation of a bank,
- physical security is just as important as application security. You
should already take the appropriate steps to protect your server physically.
- I do not think you can ever fit a bank's entire database into a removable
storage device for you to attach to another server (which would need just as
large a storage device as the source server)
Do tell, which mainstream database server protects its data files? At the
minimum, you would need to encrypt the contents lest you use a hex editor to
view the data directly, and encryption eats up cpu cycles.
Regards
Ray Mond
"Frank Dulk" <fdulk@.bol.com.br> wrote in message
news:e994$ARHEHA.3128@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Does have as protecting the data of a bank SQL-SERVER?
> -no, because if the user has access to the files ' * .mdf ', he will
simply
> be able to enclose them in a server where the user ' sa' doesn't have
> password and ready, will have access to the data.
> does Sql_Server have safety?
> -has, inside of the server of your company, because there ' Administrador'
> can protect the accesses and the files, but if somebody has access the
this
> machine (server), this everything finish (for the safety);
>
> After this chat, was I thinking (?), because it will be then that cannot
use
> MSACCESS for the database (due to safety), since Sql_server leaves me in
the
> same position.
> I hope sincerely, the result of this chat, be not 100% correct!, because
it
> reduces like this my deception in relation to the " ALL POWERFUL * "
> Sql-Server.
>
>