Horton

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

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Ryan Lambert <ryan@rustprooflabs.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, 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: 2019-07-12T18:45:55Z
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.

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:41:19PM -0600, Ryan Lambert wrote:
> >> I vote for AES 256 rather than 128.
> >
> > Why?  This page seems to think 128 is sufficient:
> >
> >         https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/20/
> what-are-the-practical-differences-between-256-bit-192-bit-and-128-bit-aes-enc
> >
> >         For practical purposes, 128-bit keys are sufficient to ensure
> security.
> >         The larger key sizes exist mostly to satisfy some US military
> >         regulations which call for the existence of several distinct
> "security
> >         levels", regardless of whether breaking the lowest level is already
> far
> >         beyond existing technology.
> 
> After researching AES key sizes a bit more my vote is (surprisingly?) for
> AES-128.  My reasoning is about security, I did not consider performance
> impacts in my decision.

Thank you for this exhaustive research.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +