From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "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 20:26:10 |
Message-ID: | 564CDEE2.2010803@aklaver.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/18/2015 11:45 AM, Day, David wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One of my co-workers came out of a NIST cyber-security type meeting
> today and asked me to delve into postgres and zeroization.
>
> I am casually aware of mvcc issues and vacuuming
>
> 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 )
>
> Not sure that is the exact question to ask but hopefully you get a feel
> for the requirement is not to leave any sensitive data laying about for
>
> recovery by a hacker, or at least minimize the places it could be
> obtained without actually being able to log into postgres or having raw
> disk access privileges.
Per Melvins post, what makes the old pages any more valuable for hacking
then the current pages?
>
> Thanks for any comments/instruction/links on the matter.
>
> Regards
>
> Dave Day
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-11-18 20:42:16 | Re: duplicate key errors in log file |
Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2015-11-18 20:23:37 | Re: postgres zeroization of dead tuples ? i.e scrubbing dead tuples with sensitive data. |