|From:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>|
|To:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Cary Huang <cary(dot)huang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, Ahsan Hadi <ahsan(dot)hadi(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Moon, Insung" <tsukiwamoon(dot)pgsql(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sehrope Sarkuni <sehrope(at)jackdb(dot)com>, cary huang <hcary328(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: Internal key management system|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
>> Hmmm. This seels to suggest that interacting with something outside
>> should be an option.
> Our goal is not to implement every possible security idea someone has,
> because we will never finish, and the final result would be too complex
> to be unable.
Sure. I'm trying to propose something both simple and extensible, so that
other people could plug their own KMS if they are not fully satisfied with
the way the internal pg KMS works, which IMHO should be the case if
someone is motivated and paranoid enough to setup a KMS in the first
> You will need to explain exactly why having a separate process has value
> over coding/user complexity, and you will need to get agreement from a
> sufficient number of people to move that idea forward.
ISTM that the value is simple: The whole KMS idea turns around a "KEK",
which is a secret key which allows to unlock/retrieve/recompute many data
keys, aka DEKs. Loosing the KEK basically means loosing all data keys,
past, present and possibly future, depending on how the KEK/DEK mechanism
So the thing you should not want is to lose your KEK.
Keeping it inside pg process means that any pg process compromision would
result in the KEK to be compromised as well, while the whole point of
doing this KMS business was to provide security by isolating realms of
If you provide an interface instead, which I'm advocating, then where the
KEK is does not concern pg, which has just to ask for DEKs. A compromise
of pg would compromise local DEKs, but not the KEK "master key". The KEK
may be somewhere on the same host, in another process, or possibly on
another host, on some attached specialized quantum hardware inacessible to
human beings. Postgres should not decide where the user should put its
KEK, because it would depend on the threat model being addressed that you
do not know.
From an implementation point of view, what I suggest is reasonably simple
and allows people to interface with the KMS of their choice, including one
based on the patch, which would be a demos about what can be done, but
other systems would be accessible just as well. The other software
engineering aspect is that a KMS is a complex/sensitive thing, so
reinventing our own and forcing it on users seems like a bad idea.
>> From what I understood from the code, the KEK is loaded into postgres
>> process. That is what I'm disagreeing with, only needed DEK should be
> One option would be to send the data needing to be encrypted to an
> external command, and get the decrypted data back. In that way, the KEK
> is never on the Postgres server. However, the API for doing such an
> interface seems very complex and could lead to failures.
I was more thinking of an interface to retrieve DEKs, but to still keep
encryption/decryption inside postgres, to limit traffic, but what you
suggest could be a valid option, so maybe should be allowed.
I disagree with the implementation complexity, though.
Basically the protocol only function is sending "GET
<opaque-key-identifier>" and retrieving a response which is either the DEK
or an error, which looks like a manageable complexity. Attached a
simplistic server-side implementation of that for illustration.
If you want externalized DEK as well, it would be sending "ENC/DEC
<key-identifier> <data>" and the response is an error, or the translated
data. Looks manageable as well. Allowing both approaches looks ok.
Obviously it requires some more thinking and design, but my point is that
postgres should not hold a KEK, ever, nor presume how DEK are to be
managed by a DMS, and that is not very difficult to achieve by putting it
outside of pg and defining how interactions take place. Providing a
reference/example implementation would be nice as well, and Masahiko-san
code can be rewrapped quite easily.
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2020-06-05 13:56:54||Re: minor doc fix - garbage in example of result of unnest|
|Previous Message||Tomas Vondra||2020-06-05 13:25:26||Re: significant slowdown of HashAggregate between 9.6 and 10|