Computers are often used to make work easier. However, sometimes computers can make work more difficult especially with poorly implementation. SOX is an important example of a poorly implemented database that has encountered. A database should have its specific intentions as much as data organization and management always exist as general functions. The SOX database implemented in 2011 was put in place to combat fraud by coming up with efficient accounting audit and management of financial records. I think the developers failed to include technical aspects of fraud control into the system. They instead targeted the visible crimes leaving very many holes for exploiting the SOX system (Anand et al., 2014).             The database seems vague from IT perspective. The database constitutes only two sections of codes relating to IT. These two sections merely meet the standards for testing IT sufficient auditing compliance by organizations. The database seems to be far off the role of fostering sufficient auditing process for these organizations. Since inception, most audit companies struggle to figure out the IT protective aspects of the database. It seems that the developers mainly focused on the guidelines in using financial systems in preventing frauds but rather forgot the IT aspect if reducing the vulnerability of the system. For so many years, the database has failed to meet the technical roles of a database in system management and accounting regulation which are the critical reason why it was created. The SOX guidelines seem to forget about pertinent technical aspects of the system function (Cinarkaya et al., 2017).             The solutions to the mistake that was done are conducting technical analysis and installing appropriate fixing. Ideally, the database should target electronic management and safety of data rather than physical data management. This mistake of poorly implemented gave a false impression of database management in many companies that adopted the type of database in early days. From physical outlook, one could see that things are alright yet some technical rot was brewing within the system. It is clear that the developers of the SOX database missed some point while deriving and implementing the database and this should be fixed to enhance the computer-based operations (Anand et al., 2014). References Anand, T. S., Wikle, G. K., Lindsay, M. P., Schubert, R. N., Lettington, D. T., & Ludwig, J. P. (2014). U.S. Patent No. 5,832,496. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Cinarkaya, B., Tamm, S., Sureshchandra, J., Warshavsky, A., Bulumulla, I. U., Fry, B., ... & Brooks, D. (2017). U.S. Patent No. 9,825,965. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. .

1. Computers are often used to make work easier. However,
sometimes computers can make work more difficult especially
with poorly implementation. SOX is an important example of a
poorly implemented database that has encountered. A database
should have its specific intentions as much as data organization
and management always exist as general functions. The SOX
database implemented in 2011 was put in place to combat fraud
by coming up with efficient accounting audit and management
of financial records. I think the developers failed to include
technical aspects of fraud control into the system. They instead
targeted the visible crimes leaving very many holes for
exploiting the SOX system (Anand et al., 2014).
The database seems vague from IT perspective. The
database constitutes only two sections of codes relating to IT.
These two sections merely meet the standards for testing IT
sufficient auditing compliance by organizations. The database
seems to be far off the role of fostering sufficient auditing
process for these organizations. Since inception, most audit
companies struggle to figure out the IT protective aspects of the
database. It seems that the developers mainly focused on the
guidelines in using financial systems in preventing frauds but
rather forgot the IT aspect if reducing the vulnerability of the
system. For so many years, the database has failed to meet the
technical roles of a database in system management and
accounting regulation which are the critical reason why it was
created. The SOX guidelines seem to forget about pertinent
technical aspects of the system function (Cinarkaya et al.,
2017).
The solutions to the mistake that was done are
conducting technical analysis and installing appropriate fixing.
Ideally, the database should target electronic management and
safety of data rather than physical data management. This
mistake of poorly implemented gave a false impression of
database management in many companies that adopted the type

2. of database in early days. From physical outlook, one could see
that things are alright yet some technical rot was brewing within
the system. It is clear that the developers of the SOX database
missed some point while deriving and implementing the
database and this should be fixed to enhance the computer-
based operations (Anand et al., 2014).
References
Anand, T. S., Wikle, G. K., Lindsay, M. P., Schubert, R. N.,
Lettington, D. T., & Ludwig, J. P. (2014). U.S. Patent No.
5,832,496. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Cinarkaya, B., Tamm, S., Sureshchandra, J., Warshavsky, A.,
Bulumulla, I. U., Fry, B., ... & Brooks, D. (2017). U.S. Patent
No. 9,825,965. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.