Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and KeyManagement Service (KMS) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and KeyManagement Service (KMS)
Date
Msg-id 20190712184555.udtggn42khjmqu4c@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and KeyManagement Service (KMS)  (Ryan Lambert <ryan@rustprooflabs.com>)
Responses Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and KeyManagement Service (KMS)  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:41:19PM -0600, Ryan Lambert wrote:
> >> I vote for AES 256 rather than 128.
> >
> > Why?  This page seems to think 128 is sufficient:
> >
> >         https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/20/
> what-are-the-practical-differences-between-256-bit-192-bit-and-128-bit-aes-enc
> >
> >         For practical purposes, 128-bit keys are sufficient to ensure
> security.
> >         The larger key sizes exist mostly to satisfy some US military
> >         regulations which call for the existence of several distinct
> "security
> >         levels", regardless of whether breaking the lowest level is already
> far
> >         beyond existing technology.
> 
> After researching AES key sizes a bit more my vote is (surprisingly?) for
> AES-128.  My reasoning is about security, I did not consider performance
> impacts in my decision.

Thank you for this exhaustive research.

-- 
  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 +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ryan Lambert
Date:
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and KeyManagement Service (KMS)
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: Check-out mutable functions in check constraints