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 20190810173937.f5ujiazfdbwxhgo7@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and KeyManagement Service (KMS)  (Sehrope Sarkuni <sehrope@jackdb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug  7, 2019 at 08:56:18AM -0400, Sehrope Sarkuni wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:02 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>     I was thinking the WAL would use the same key since the nonce is unique
>     between the two.  What value is there in using a different key?

> Never having to worry about overlap in Key + IV usage is main advantage. While
> it's possible to structure IVs to avoid that from happening, it's much easier
> to completely avoid that situation by ensuring different parts of an
> application are using separate derived keys.

Now that we are considering a different encryption key for heap/index
files and WAL, so there is no chance of overlap, it seems we can go back
to using a non-zero IV rather than derived keys.

-- 
  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: "Jonathan S. Katz"
Date:
Subject: Re: Add "password_protocol" connection parameter to libpq
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Shrinking tuplesort.c's SortTuple struct (Was: More ideas forspeeding up sorting)