Horton

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

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.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: 2019-07-29T20:09:52Z
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 2019-Jul-27, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> I think using LSN and page number, we will _never_ reuse the IV, except
> for cases like promoting two standbys, which I think we have to document
> as an insecure practice.

Actually, why is it an insecure practice?  If you promote two standbys,
then the encrypted pages are the same pages, so it's not two different
messages with the same key/IV -- they're still *one* message.  And as
soon as they start getting queries, they will most likely diverge
because the LSNs of records after the promotion will (most likely) no
longer match.  It takes one different WAL record length for the
"encryption histories" to diverge completely ...

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services