From: | tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de |
---|---|
To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
Cc: | Sam Halliday <sam(dot)halliday(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RFE: Transparent encryption on all fields |
Date: | 2009-04-25 04:52:41 |
Message-ID: | 20090425045241.GA30912@tomas |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 03:45:16PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de:
[...]
> Someone hijacking your live server does not automatically give anyone
> the key, unless you implement this wrong (which is, of course, possible).
>
> Each _user_ gets their own key, encrypted with their password. Thus,
> even if an attack gets an offline dump of the database, it does them
> no good unless they already have the user's password. If they have
> that, they they've been given license to bypass your security
> restrictions _without_ doing anything funky.
Sorry, I was unclear: what I meant was the "live" server in the sense
that it's running (so either by physical access or via a trojan). In
this case the keys have to be around somewhere (say in RAM) -- as
opposed to the "quiescent" server (there I agree: keys are locked, or
better: not even there).
> But it's still protected. If an attacker manages to get an offline
> copy of the database (let's imagine a horrific scenario where they
> steal an unencrypted backup tape, or they find a huge SQL injection
> hole that allows them access to the entire database ...) they still
> only have access to the data for users that they know the password
> for. Even if they have a certain user's password, it only unlocks a
> single key, which only unlocks that user's data.
Not if the users have already provided the password and unlocked their
keys (i.e. they are working with the database).
> Sure, there are challenges, but there are methods to work through all
> of those challenges.
I seem to be less optimistic than you are: I think as soon as the server
"has" all the necessary key material to decrypt the data you are't more
secure than a "traditional" system, with some access control.
Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFJ8pcZBcgs9XrR2kYRAvH4AJ9Lx9Li3y1cpqIyhjorrkKvLfQ/4gCfTzbf
vrXd6oq37UmrARqVrN8FrVY=
=kENy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | tomas | 2009-04-25 05:17:33 | Re: RFE: Transparent encryption on all fields |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-04-25 03:52:55 | Re: HashJoin w/option to unique-ify inner rel |