<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: dhSQLite &#8211; now with FTS2 and VB UDFs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.gobansaor.com/2007/06/29/dhsqlite-now-with-fts2-and-vb-udfs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.gobansaor.com/2007/06/29/dhsqlite-now-with-fts2-and-vb-udfs/</link>
	<description>A country datasmith.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:49:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: gobansaor</title>
		<link>http://blog.gobansaor.com/2007/06/29/dhsqlite-now-with-fts2-and-vb-udfs/#comment-2216</link>
		<dc:creator>gobansaor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:30:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gobansaor.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/dhsqlite-now-with-fts2-and-vb-udfs/#comment-2216</guid>
		<description>Olaf,

Yes I should have said 3.4.0, thanks for pointing it out.

I thing RC4 is fine for most purposes.  What would be nice would be the option to use a stronger (and maybe slower) encryption algorithm and perhaps a builtin function to allow encryption &#039;within&#039; the database, i.e. encrypt only certain fields, records or tables.

Tom</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Olaf,</p>
<p>Yes I should have said 3.4.0, thanks for pointing it out.</p>
<p>I thing RC4 is fine for most purposes.  What would be nice would be the option to use a stronger (and maybe slower) encryption algorithm and perhaps a builtin function to allow encryption &#8216;within&#8217; the database, i.e. encrypt only certain fields, records or tables.</p>
<p>Tom</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Olaf Schmidt</title>
		<link>http://blog.gobansaor.com/2007/06/29/dhsqlite-now-with-fts2-and-vb-udfs/#comment-2184</link>
		<dc:creator>Olaf Schmidt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:16:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gobansaor.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/dhsqlite-now-with-fts2-and-vb-udfs/#comment-2184</guid>
		<description>Hi Goban,

just a comment about the version of the underlying SQLite-engine... it is based on version 3.4.0, not 2.4.0 ...
maybe you can fix that in your blog-entry.

Regarding RC4-encryption - yes, it is normally &quot;good enough&quot;, much stronger than e.g. the DB-encryption for MS-Access-Databases, wich can be cracked in seconds using tools flying around in the internet. 
Tough I think about changing it to AES in the next version - will test and see how it performs, since RC4 is a really fast Stream-Cipher.

Regards,

Olaf Schmidt</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Goban,</p>
<p>just a comment about the version of the underlying SQLite-engine&#8230; it is based on version 3.4.0, not 2.4.0 &#8230;<br />
maybe you can fix that in your blog-entry.</p>
<p>Regarding RC4-encryption &#8211; yes, it is normally &#8220;good enough&#8221;, much stronger than e.g. the DB-encryption for MS-Access-Databases, wich can be cracked in seconds using tools flying around in the internet.<br />
Tough I think about changing it to AES in the next version &#8211; will test and see how it performs, since RC4 is a really fast Stream-Cipher.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Olaf Schmidt</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
