On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 06:22:46PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
>> <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> > From: Nico Williams [mailto:nico@cryptonector.com]
>> >
>> >> One shortcoming of relying on OS functionality for protection against
>> >> malicious storage is that not all OSes may provide such functionality.
>> >> This could be an argument for implementing full, transparent encryption
>> >> for an entire DB in the postgres server. Not a very compelling
>> >> argument, but that's just my opinion -- reasonable people could differ
>> >> on this.
>> >
>> > Yes, this is one reason I developed TDE in our product. And
>> > in-database encryption allows optimization by encrypting only user
>> > data.
>
> You're likely getting some things terribly wrong. E.g., integrity
> protection. Most likely you're getting a false sense of security.
>
>> Me too. In-database encryption is helpful in practice. I think 1) and
>> 2) seem to cover the thread models which the data encryption in
>> database needs to defend.
>
> Yes, but piecemeal encryption seems like a bad idea to me.
>
What do you mean by "piecemeal encryption"? Is it not-whole database
encryption such as per-table or per-tablespace? If so could you please
elaborate on the reason why you think so?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
