From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Day, David" <dday(at)redcom(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postgres zeroization of dead tuples ? i.e scrubbing dead tuples with sensitive data. |
Date: | 2015-11-18 20:22:44 |
Message-ID: | 31091.1447878164@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> David G. Johnston wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Day, David <dday(at)redcom(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I believe the concern, based on my current understanding of postgres
>>> inner workings, is that when a dead tuple is reclaimed by vacuuming: Is
>>> that reclaimed space initialized in some fashion that would shred any
>>> sensitive data that was formerly there to any inspection by the
>>> subsequent owner of that disk page ? ( zeroization )
> No. Ultimately, space occupied by dead tuples is "freed" in
> PageRepairFragmentation(), src/backend/storage/page/bufpage.c;
> the contents of the tuples are shuffled to "defragment" the free space,
> but the free space is not zeroed. You could certainly try to read the
> unused page and extract some data from there.
It's quite unclear to me what threat model such a behavior would add
useful protection against.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John R Pierce | 2015-11-18 20:23:37 | Re: postgres zeroization of dead tuples ? i.e scrubbing dead tuples with sensitive data. |
Previous Message | Melvin Davidson | 2015-11-18 20:20:38 | Re: postgres zeroization of dead tuples ? i.e scrubbing dead tuples with sensitive data. |