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:
Cc: 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: 2019-03-08T16:38:59Z
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.

Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote:

> Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Agreed.
> > 
> > For the WAL encryption, I wonder if we can have a encryption key
> > dedicated for WAL. Regardless of keys of tables and indexes all WAL
> > are encrypted with the WAL key. During the recovery the startup
> > process decrypts WAL and applies it, and then the table data will be
> > encrypted with its table key when flushing. So we just control the
> > scope of encryption object: WAL of tables and indexes etc or
> > everything.
> 
> My point of view is that different key usually means different user. The user
> who can decrypt WAL can effectively see all the data, even though another user
> put them (encrypted with another key) into tables. So in this case, different
> keys don't really separate users in terms of data access.

Please ignore what I said here. You probably meant that the WAL is both
encrypted and decrypted using the same (dedicated) key.

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