Horton

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

Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>

View thread
From: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, 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: 2019-07-08T15:18:01Z
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 7/8/19 10:19 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> When people are asking for multiple keys (not just for key rotation),
> they are asking to have multiple keys that can be supplied by users only
> when they need to access the data.  Yes, the keys are always in the
> datbase, but the feature request is that they are only unlocked when the
> user needs to access the data.  Obviously, that will not work for
> autovacuum when the encryption is at the block level.

> If the key is always unlocked, there is questionable security value of
> having multiple keys, beyond key rotation.

That is not true. Having multiple keys also allows you to reduce the
amount of data encrypted with a single key, which is desirable because:

1. It makes cryptanalysis more difficult
2. Puts less data at risk if someone gets "lucky" in doing brute force


Joe

-- 
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development