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

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Ryan Lambert <ryan(at)rustprooflabs(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Moon, Insung" <Moon_Insung_i3(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)
Date: 2019-07-10 19:45:08
Message-ID: 20190710194508.nsxyq76wx4e2qpme@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 02:57:54PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Ryan Lambert (ryan(at)rustprooflabs(dot)com) wrote:
> > > I didn't either, except it was referenced above as "forward hash". I
> > > don't know why that was suggested, which is why I listed it as an
> > > option/suggestion.
> >
> > My bad, sorry for the confusion! I meant to say "cipher" not "hash". I
> > was (trying to) refer to the method of generating unpredictable IV from
> > nonces using the forward cipher function and the encryption key.
> > Too many closely related words with very specific meanings.
>
> No worries, just want to try and be clear on these things.. Too easy to
> mistakenly think that doing this very-similar-thing will be as secure as
> doing the recommended-thing (particularly when the recommended-thing is
> a lot harder...), and we don't want to end up doing that and then
> discovering it isn't actually secure..

Good, so I think we all now agree we have to put the nonce
(pg_class.oid, LSN, page-number) though the cipher using the secret. I
think Stephen is right that the overhead of this will be minimal for 8k
page writes, and for WAL, we only need to generate the IV when we start
a new 16MB segment, so again, minimal overhead.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)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 +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-07-10 19:53:55 Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2019-07-10 19:44:14 Re: Add parallelism and glibc dependent only options to reindexdb