Re: Value of Transparent Data Encryption (TDE)

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Value of Transparent Data Encryption (TDE)
Date: 2019-10-03 20:55:18
Message-ID: 20191003205517.GM26480@fetter.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:26:15AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:19 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > Just to give more detail. Initially, there was a desire to store
> > keys in only one place, either in the file system or in database
> > tables. However, it became clear that the needs of booting the
> > server and crash recovery required file system keys, and
> > per-user/db keys were best done at the SQL level, so that indexing
> > can be used, and logical dumps contain the locked keys. SQL-level
> > storage allows databases to be completely independent of other
> > databases in terms of key storage and usage.
>
> Wait, we're going to store the encryption keys with the database?

Encryption keys are fine there so long as decryption keys are
separate.

Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2019-10-03 21:05:43 Re: Connections hang indefinitely while taking a gin index's LWLock buffer_content lock(PG10.7)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-10-03 20:13:05 Re: fairywren failures