| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, 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: | 2019-07-08 15:18:01 |
| Message-ID: | c35cb9d6-bbfc-fb04-4517-9acd1f6f1d1a@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/8/19 10:19 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> When people are asking for multiple keys (not just for key rotation),
> they are asking to have multiple keys that can be supplied by users only
> when they need to access the data. Yes, the keys are always in the
> datbase, but the feature request is that they are only unlocked when the
> user needs to access the data. Obviously, that will not work for
> autovacuum when the encryption is at the block level.
> If the key is always unlocked, there is questionable security value of
> having multiple keys, beyond key rotation.
That is not true. Having multiple keys also allows you to reduce the
amount of data encrypted with a single key, which is desirable because:
1. It makes cryptanalysis more difficult
2. Puts less data at risk if someone gets "lucky" in doing brute force
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2019-07-08 15:22:21 | Re: Add missing operator <->(box, point) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-07-08 15:07:59 | Re: Broken defenses against dropping a partitioning column |