privileges create on table level with security

[comment]

The risk is in what the consequences are from being able to manipulate the field.

 

I have already answered this in post #30. The vulnerability of a safe is determined by how easy it is to break into it - not by what's in it.

 

 

if you change the field from "Cleveland" to "Boston"; that's bad because it exposes that is not supposed to be visible.

 

No, it's bad because it allows Alice to view, edit and delete records created by the Boston office - i.e. "do more than what was intended". But I already said that before, too. Why is this so difficult to accept? Conversely, if it's wrong, you (plural) are doing a very poor job at refuting it.

[LaRetta]

But Comment is getting to the crux ... I truly hope that we all can stay focused on nailing it down because this is exactly the problem we run into ... data is data.  How can one field of data be safer than another?

[Wim Decorte]

The vulnerability of a safe is determined by how easy it is to break into it - not by what's in it.

 

Agreed.  But the impact of the breach is measured by what can be gotten.

 

In the two scenarios the impact of the (same) breach will be bigger because there is simply more valuable information stored in the field. 

[comment]

In the two scenarios the impact of the (same) breach will be bigger because there is simply more valuable information stored in the field. 

 

I said something very similar in the last paragraph of post #30. Although strictly speaking, we don't know that. For all we know, if Alice as much as glances at the records of the Topeka office, it will mean the end of western civilization as we know it - while the most damage Bob will be able to inflict is to delete the list of vinyl records kept by the school library.