Re: Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and encrypted files - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Greetings,

* Tomas Vondra (tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:40:40AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >People who are looking for 'encrypt all the things' should and will be
> >looking at filesytem-level encryption options.  That's not what this
> >feature is about.
>
> That's almost certainly not true, at least not universally.
>
> It may be true for some people, but a a lot of the people asking for
> in-database encryption essentially want to do filesystem encryption but
> can't use it for various reasons. E.g. because they're running in
> environments that make filesystem encryption impossible to use (OS not
> supporting it directly, no access to the block device, lack of admin
> privileges, ...). Or maybe they worry about people with fs access.

Anyone coming from other database systems isn't asking for that though
and it wouldn't be a comparable offering to other systems.

> If you look at how the two threads discussing the FDE design, both of
> them pretty much started as "let's do FDE in the database".

And that's how some folks continue to see it- let's just encrypt all the
things, until they actually look at it and start thinking about what
that means and how to implement it.

Yeah, it'd be great to just encrypt everything, with a bunch of
different keys, all of which are stored somewhere else, and can be
updated and changed by the user when they need to do a rekeying, but
then you start have to asking about what keys need to be available when
for doing crash recovery, how do you handle a crash in the middle of a
rekeying, how do you handle updating keys from the user, etc..

Sure, we could offer a dead simple "here, use this one key at database
start to just encrypt everything" and that would be enough for some set
of users (a very small set, imv, but that's subjective, obviously), but
I don't think we could dare promote that as having TDE because it
wouldn't be at all comparable to what other databases have, and it
wouldn't materially move us in the direction of having real TDE.

> >>I'm not sold on the comments that have been made about encrypting the
> >>server log. I agree that could leak data, but that seems like somebody
> >>else's problem: the log files aren't really under PostgreSQL's
> >>management in the same way as pg_clog is. If you want to secure your
> >>logs, send them to syslog and configure it to do whatever you need.
> >
> >I agree with this.
>
> I don't. I know it's not an easy problem to solve, but it may contain
> user data (which is what we manage). We may allow disabling that, at
> which point it becomes someone else's problem.

We also send user data to clients, but I don't imagine we're suggesting
that we need to control what some downstream application does with that
data or how it gets stored.  There's definitely a lot of room for
improvement in our logging (in an ideal world, we'd have a way to
actually store the logs in the database, at which point it could be
encrypted or not that way...), but I'm not seeing the need for us to
have a way to encrypt the log files.  If we did encrypt them, we'd have
to make sure to do it in a way that users could still access them
without the database being up and running, which might be tricky if the
key is in the vault...

Thanks,

Stephen