[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnumed-devel] on meaningfully signing off reviewed items

From: J Busser
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] on meaningfully signing off reviewed items
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:59:43 -0800

At 6:04 PM +0100 1/25/06, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
I still maintain the view that
we need to safeguard against signed-scope manipulations.

I am having a bit of trouble understanding the manipulation, in terms of why it is proposed that some rows in gnumed deserve a record of signing (on top of the audit trail that presumably preserves which staff altered which rows).

Is it proposed that when the surgery or clinic receives an electronic document (or scans paper to create one), that the electronic file is not imported into a gnumed row, but instead a link is made to a file that sits outside the postgres table? In which case the target of the link is at risk of being substituted, without alteration in the link?

In which case I don't see how the "signing" of a row would protect against the manipulation. So obviously at issue is something else, if within my ability to understand? Maybe to do with document "parts", maybe relates to some postings back around Oct 26 on "reviewed status tables/views".

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]