Horton

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

Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>

View thread
From: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
To: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, 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: 2019-07-11T13:48:49Z
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.

Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:

> Please see my other reply (and
> https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-38a.pdf
> appendix C as pointed out by Ryan downthread).

Thanks.

> At least in my mind, I trust a published specification from the
> nation-state level over random blogs or wikipedia. If we can find some
> equivalent published standards that contradict NIST we should discuss
> it, but for my money I would prefer to stick with the NIST recommended
> method to produce the IVs.

I don't think this as a problem of trusting A over B. Those blogs try to
explain the attacks in detail, while the NIST standard is just a set of
recommendations that does not (try to) provide technical details of comparable
depth.

Although I prefer understanding things in detail, I think it's o.k. to say in
documentation that "we use ... cipher because it complies to ... standard".

-- 
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com