On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 10:59:12AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> I agree that all of that isn't necessary for an initial implementation,
> I was rather trying to lay out how we could improve on this in the
> future and why having the keying done at a tablespace level makes sense
> initially because we can then potentially move forward with further
> segregation to improve the situation. I do believe it's also useful in
> its own right, to be clear, just not as nice since a compromised backend
> could still get access to data in shared buffers that it really
> shouldn't be able to, even broadly, see.
I think TDE is feature of questionable value at best and the idea that
we would fundmentally change the internals of Postgres to add more
features to it seems very unlikely. I realize we have to discuss it so
we don't block reasonable future feature development.
> > Agreed. I have thought about this some more. There is certainly value
> > in layered security, so if something gets violated, it doesn't open the
> > whole system. However, I think the layering has to be done at the right
> > levels, and I think you want levels that have clear boundaries, like IP
> > filtering or monitoring. Placing a boundary inside the database seems
> > much too complex a level to be effective. Using separate encrypted and
> > unencrypted clusters and allowing the encrypted cluster to query the
> > unencrypted clusters using FDWs does seem like good layering, though the
> > FDW queries might leak information.
>
> Using FDWs simply isn't a solution to this, for a few different reasons-
> the first is that our solution to authentication for FDWs is to store
> passwords in our catalog tables, but an FDW table also doesn't behave
> like a regular table in many important cases.
The FDW authentication problem is something I think we need to improve
no matter what.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.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 +
