From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sehrope Sarkuni <sehrope(at)jackdb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Moon, Insung" <Moon_Insung_i3(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |
Date: | 2019-07-29 22:27:31 |
Message-ID: | 4e9dddbe-7d17-ed9c-57fe-51ed1d135008@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/29/19 6:11 PM, Sehrope Sarkuni wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 4:15 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
> <mailto:alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> On 2019-Jul-27, Sehrope Sarkuni wrote:
>
> > Given the non-cryptographic nature of CRC and its 16-bit size, I'd
> > round down the malicious tamper detection it provides to zero. At best
> > it catches random disk errors so might as well keep it in plain text
> > and checkable offline.
>
> But what attack are we protecting against? We fear that somebody will
> steal a disk or a backup. We don't fear that they will *write* data.
> The CRC is there to protect against data corruption. So whether or not
> the CRC protects against malicious tampering is beside the point.
>
>
> That was in response to using an encrypted CRC for tamper detection. I
> agree that it does not provide meaningful protection so there is no
> point in adding complexity to use it for that.
>
> I agree it's better to leave the CRC as-is for detecting corruption
> which also has the advantage of playing nice with existing checksum tooling.
>
>
> If we were trying to protect against an attacker having access to
> *writing* data in the production server, this encryption scheme is
> useless: they could just as well read unencrypted data from shared
> buffers anyway.
>
>
> The attack situation is someone being able to modify pages at the
> storage tier. They cannot necessarily read server memory or the
> encryption key, but they could make changes to existing data or an
> existing backup that would be subsequently read by the server.
>
> Dealing with that is way out of scope but similar to the replica
> promotion I think it should be kept track of and documented.
>
>
> I think trying to protect against malicious data tampering is a second
> step *after* this one is done.
>
>
> +1
Well said; +1
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2019-07-29 22:27:56 | Re: Define jsonpath functions as stable |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2019-07-29 22:25:25 | Re: Define jsonpath functions as stable |