| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, "Joe Conway" <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: protecting prosrc (was Re: [GENERAL] USAGE on schema allowed by |
| Date: | 2002-12-02 21:17:18 |
| Message-ID: | 01a201c29a48$31e77390$6500a8c0@internal |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> > It wouldn't be terribly difficult to encrypt prosrc with 3des (or maybe
aes)
> > using the owner's passwd from pg_shadow. We would need a new bool column
in
> > pg_proc (proisencrypted?) and some logic in fmgr.c.
> >
> > Is there sufficient interest to justify the effort?
> >
>
> I think this would be a good idea, though there becomes a question of
> what type of performance hit comes into play when doing this. I suppose
> if you have an option whether to encrypt it or not that would help. One
> other thing is that it needs to be "decryptable" by owners and
> superusers.
Surely a more generic column privileges implementation would be better?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-12-02 21:24:31 | Re: protecting prosrc (was Re: [GENERAL] USAGE on schema |
| Previous Message | Medi Montaseri | 2002-12-02 21:02:30 | Re: Segmentation fault while COPY in 7.3 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-12-02 21:24:31 | Re: protecting prosrc (was Re: [GENERAL] USAGE on schema |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-12-02 21:04:14 | Re: ALTER .. ADD PRIMARY KEY |