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: Sehrope Sarkuni <sehrope@jackdb.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: 2019-08-10T17:39:37Z
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 Wed, Aug  7, 2019 at 08:56:18AM -0400, Sehrope Sarkuni wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:02 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>     I was thinking the WAL would use the same key since the nonce is unique
>     between the two.  What value is there in using a different key?

> Never having to worry about overlap in Key + IV usage is main advantage. While
> it's possible to structure IVs to avoid that from happening, it's much easier
> to completely avoid that situation by ensuring different parts of an
> application are using separate derived keys.

Now that we are considering a different encryption key for heap/index
files and WAL, so there is no chance of overlap, it seems we can go back
to using a non-zero IV rather than derived keys.

-- 
  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 +