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 20190823132825.GB16285@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and KeyManagement Service (KMS)  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and KeyManagement Service (KMS)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 07:45:22AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 01:52:17PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Being PostgreSQL, I would expect us to shoot for as much flexibility as
> > > we possible, similar to what we've done for our ACL system where we
> > > support down to a column-level (and row level with RLS).
> > > 
> > > That's our target end-goal.  Having an incremental plan to get there
> > > where we start with something simpler and then work towards a more
> > > complicated implementation is fine- but that base, as I've said multiple
> > > times and as supported by what we see other database systems have,
> > > should include some kind of key store with support for multiple keys and
> > > a way to encrypt something less than the entire system.  Every other
> > > database system that we consider at all comparable has at least that.
> > 
> > Well, we don't blindly copy features from other databases.  The features
> > has to be useful for our users and reasonable to implement in Postgres. 
> > This is been the criteria for every other Postgres features I have seen
> > developed.
> 
> Having listed out the feature set of each of the other major databases
> when it comes to TDE is exactly how we objectively look at what is being
> done in the industry, and that then gives us an understanding of what
> users (and auditors) coming from other platforms will expect.
> 
> I entirely agree that we shouldn't just copy N feature from X other
> database system unless we feel that's the best approach, but when every
> other database system out there has capability Y for the general feature
> X that we're thinking about implementing, we should be questioning an
> approach which doesn't include that.

Agreed.  The features of other databases are a clear source for what we
should consider and run through the useful/reasonable filter.

-- 
  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: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: "ago" times on buildfarm status page
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Explain: Duplicate key "Workers" in JSON format