On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 4:32 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> But it's missing the remaining 90% of the work,
> including additional DDL support, error handling, robust memory
> management, protocol versioning, forward and backward compatibility,
> pg_dump support, psql \d support, refinement of the cryptography, and
> so on. But I think obvious solutions exist to all of those things, so
> it isn't that interesting to focus on them for now.
Right, we wouldn't want to get bogged down at this stage in little
details like, uh, everything.
> Some protocol extensions are required. These should be guarded by
> some _pq_... setting, but this is not done in this patch yet. As
> mentioned above, extra messages are added for sending the CMKs and
> CEKs. In the RowDescription message, I have commandeered the format
> field to add a bit that indicates that the field is encrypted. This
> could be made a separate field, and there should probably be
> additional fields to indicate the algorithm and CEK name, but this was
> easiest for now. The ParameterDescription message is extended to
> contain format fields for each parameter, for the same purpose.
> Again, this could be done differently.
I think this is reasonable. I would choose to use an additional bit in
the format field as opposed to a separate field. It is worth
considering whether it makes more sense to extend the existing
ParameterDescription message conditionally on some protocol-level
option, or whether we should instead, say, add ParameterDescription2
or the moral equivalent. As I see it, the latter feels conceptually
simpler, but on the other hand, our wire protocol supposes that we
will never run out of 1-byte codes for messages, so perhaps some
prudence is needed.
> Speaking of parameter descriptions, the trickiest part of this whole
> thing appears to be how to get transparently encrypted data into the
> database (as opposed to reading it out). It is required to use
> protocol-level prepared statements (i.e., extended query) for this.
Why? If the client knows the CEK, can't the client choose to send
unprepared insert or update statements with pre-encrypted blobs? That
might be a bad idea from a security perspective because the encrypted
blob might then got logged, but we sometimes log parameters, too.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
