On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 02:44:26PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Another threat model to consider is if the attacker has read-only access
> to the data directory through, say, unix group read privileges or maybe
> the ability to monitor the traffic on the SAN, or the ability to
> read-only mount the LUN on to another system. This might be obtained by
> attacking a backup process where the system was configured to run
> physical backups using an unprivileged OS user who only has group read
> access to the cluster (and the necessary but non-superuser privleges in
> the database system to start/stop the backup), or various potential
> attacks at the storage layer. This is similar to the "data at rest"
> case above in that XTS works well to address this, but because the
> attacker would have ongoing access (rather than just one-time, such as
> in the first case), information such as which blocks are being changed
> inside of a given 8k page might be able to be determined and that could
> be useful information, though a point here: they would already be able
> to see clearly which 8k pages are being changed and which aren't, and
> there's not really any way for us to prevent that reasonably. As such,
> I'd argue that using XTS is reasonable and we can mitigate some of this
> concern by using the LSN in the tweak instead of just the block number
> as the 'plain64' option in dmcrypt does. That doing so would mean that
That is an excellent point, and something we should mention in our
documentation --- the fact that a change of 8k granularity will be
visible, and in certain specified cases, 16-byte change granularity will
also be visible.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
