Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A6263238C for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:26:10 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 39472-06 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 12:25:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from serv01.siteground178.com (ns1.siteground178.com [67.15.255.19]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F3A632417 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:25:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [67.15.255.19] (port=49438 helo=intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net) by serv01.siteground178.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NzUKO-0000cX-JR; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:25:52 -0500 Received: from phpmailer ([76.106.235.204]) by intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net with HTTP (PHPMailer); Wed, 7 Apr 2010 07:25:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 07:25:52 -0500 To: Timothy Madden , Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum Cc: Kevin Grittner , Scott Marlowe , pgsql-admin@postgresql.org, Joe Conway From: Michael Gould Subject: Re: Database level encryption Message-ID: <4fafa57d090e57bb44ec5a177ecf292e@intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: PHPMailer [version 1.71] X-Mailer: FeLaMiMail In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - serv01.siteground178.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - postgresql.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.599 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201004/64 X-Sequence-Number: 34158 Timothy, I've worked with SQL Anywhere which does have database encryption. There are pluses to having a encrypted db, but it did slow down the = processing.=20 They also had the ability to encrypt stored procedures and triggers. That didn't' seem to really slow down the system. That being said, the encryption will keep the normal user out of the = system, but those aren't the people you need to worry about. The people you need = to worry about are the real hackers and they will be able to get around this type of encryption. I'd like to see something to protect stored = procedures and triggers but overall I agree that a encrypted drive is probably the = best thing and require ssl connections. Best Regards Michael Gould "Timothy Madden" wrote: > Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote: >=20 >> If someone captures the machine the bad guy can install a network >> sniffer and steal the database passwords upon connect. >=20 > I think protecting against a keylogger is a different issue than > database encryption. Is this why database encryption is "not needed" > for PostgreSQL, as people here say ? >=20 >=20 >>> With an encrypted database, you need the password anytime you connect, >>> even if another application already has an open connection. >> >> See above, this doesn't help. >> >> If someone get's root access to your machine, nothing (no filesystem >> and no database encryption) is goint to help you here. >=20 >=20 > I would have to disagree with you here. The whole point of encryption > is that you need the key in order to get your data back. >=20 >=20 > Timothy Madden >=20 > --=20 > Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin >=20