From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: better page-level checksums |
Date: | 2022-06-16 23:24:43 |
Message-ID: | Yqu7u3EmCGkQeJyu@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 01:42:55PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Hmm, but on the other hand, if you imagine a scenario in which the
> "storage system extra blob" is actually a nonce for TDE, you need to
> be able to find it before you've decrypted the rest of the page. If
> pd_checksum gives you the offset of that data, you need to exclude it
> from what gets encrypted, which means that you need encrypt three
> separate non-contiguous areas of the page whose combined size is
> unlikely to be a multiple of the encryption algorithm's block size.
> That kind of sucks (and putting it at the end of the page makes it way
> better).
I continue to believe that a nonce is not needed for XTS encryption
mode, and that adding a tamper-detection GCM hash is of limited
usefulness since malicious writes can be done to other critical files
and can be used to find the cluster or encryption keys
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-06-16 23:31:30 | PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size |
Previous Message | Mark Wong | 2022-06-16 22:56:50 | Re: real/float example for testlibpq3 |