On 22/11/17 14:18, Aldemir Akpinar wrote:
That's routine. Few readers read everything that can be read. For example, look at postgres. Its binary file format reveals quite a bit more than you can get using psql, and by design: The writer and binary format are intended for storing things quickly and reliably, and the reader for reading what was stored. Anything that's in the file but wasn't stored by instruction of an SQL user is uninteresting to psql, and the file format writer has no particular reason to avoid storing other information.Could you elaborate why are you comparing a relational database system where its files must be binary with a logging system where its files doesn't need to binary?
Need? Nothing "needs" to be in binary[*]. It's a design decision. Do the advantages of a structured format (mostly speed) override the disadvantages (higher costs for access if the reader software is unavailable?
[*] or, to put it another way -- *everything on a computer is in binary*. "Text" files are binary. The question is how easy is it to decode the file format. It seems obvious that a "text" file is easy to decode, everyone knows the format (but what character set is it in?), but don't forget that the "text" file is stored on a filesystem, which is itself a complicated "binary" structure. When you're talking about "forensics", i.e. looking at something that may be broken in exciting ways, it's quite naïve to assume that you can just mount the filesystem (which one?) and use cat, vi, grep or whatever.
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
