Errata for my book: Pro Encryption in SQL Server 2022

My biggest fear when my book went into production was that any factual errors had slipped through my checks and the various reviews. I had a lot of reviewer support from Apress, but at the end of the day any issues are my responsibility.

So far I’m not aware of any factual errors but one kind reader (Ekrem Önsoy) has shared with me a few typos they have found. I’m going to document them here and will keep this post up to date as I’m made aware of any others:

Page 158

“In practice however some of the steps detailed earlier can’t be carried out directly from T-SQL, and these include generating the certificate and generating the new values of your CEKS encrypted by the new CEK.”

The highlighted term is incorrect, should read:

“In practice however some of the steps detailed earlier can’t be carried out directly from T-SQL, and these include generating the certificate and generating the new values of your CEKS encrypted by the new CMK.”

Page 204

“Now is a good time to check that you can connect to SQL Server on your VM from SSMS on your host machine. Connect with the IP address 192.168.03”

The IP address referenced here should read 192.168.0.3

Page 221

“We’re going to use the lab environment we created in Chapter 14 and connect to our SQL Server via the IP address 192.168.03 again;”

Again, the IP address referenced here should read 192.168.0.3

Page 232

“To be specific, how you can you ensure that the enclave is hydrated with the right CEKs”

Should read:

“To be specific, how can you ensure that the enclave is hydrated with the right CEKs”

That’s it so far. Thanks again to Ekrem, and if anyone else spots any errors please let me know.

Got a problem or embarking on a SQL Server project and want some help and advice? I’m available for consulting – please get in touch or check out my services page to find out what I can do for you.

3 thoughts on “Errata for my book: Pro Encryption in SQL Server 2022

    1. Thanks for the spot. I originally had it as 2008 but during the review/editing process someone (naming no names) corrected me and said they had used it in 2005. My fault for not double-checking though!

Leave a Reply