Horton

Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>

View thread
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>, "Moon, Insung" <Moon_Insung_i3@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-06-16T18:10:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Revamp the WAL record format.

Greetings,

* Joe Conway (mail@joeconway.com) wrote:
> On 6/16/19 9:45 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 07:07:20AM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> >> In any case it doesn't address my first point, which is limiting the
> >> volume encrypted with the same key. Another valid reason is you might
> >> have data at varying sensitivity levels and prefer different keys be
> >> used for each level.
> > 
> > That seems quite complex.
> 
> How? It is no more complex than encrypting at the tablespace level
> already gives you - in that case you get this property for free if you
> care to use it.

Perhaps not surprising, but I'm definitely in agreement with Joe
regarding having multiple keys when possible and (reasonably)
straight-forward to do so.  I also don't buy off on the OpenSSL
argument; their more severe issues certainly haven't been due to key
management issues such as what we're discussing here, so I don't think
the argument applies.

Thanks,

Stephen