From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Ants Aasma <ants.aasma@eesti.ee>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: WIP: Data at rest encryption
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 19:13:02 -0400
Message-ID: <20170615231302.GA11450@momjian.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170615224108.GC1769@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <a2fa2930-5334-c926-01ee-4a01c605b7a4@2ndquadrant.com>
<20170613221104.GT3151@tamriel.snowman.net>
<9cea5160-c64b-0b9e-d4b7-c57db2a696be@2ndquadrant.com>
<20170614214119.GL1769@tamriel.snowman.net>
<0b5611b8-af0f-152d-9c38-222b081c71ac@2ndquadrant.com>
<CA+TgmoYrQvGkr-6j4fDxJ-SBjhiALzDZcukR2c9s0VeGbWoWaw@mail.gmail.com>
<20170615202942.GA20904@momjian.us>
<CA+TgmoaPbgzNytWPwD43s996eQkOwVATbhXCfhvQ8FkP8cG4JQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20170615211201.GC8443@momjian.us>
<20170615224108.GC1769@tamriel.snowman.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 06:41:08PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > One serious difference between in-database-encryption and SSH keys is
> > > > that the use of passwords for SSH is well understood and reasonable to
> > > > use, while I think we all admit that use of passwords for database
> > > > objects like SSL keys is murky. Use of keys for OS-level encryption is
> > > > a little better handled, but not as clean as SSH keys.
> > >
> > > Peter pointed out upthread that our handling of SSL passphrases leaves
> > > a lot to be desired, and that maybe we should fix that problem first;
> > > I agree. But I don't think this is any kind of intrinsic limitation
> > > of PostgreSQL vs. encrypted filesystems vs. SSH; it's just a
> > > quality-of-implementation issue.
>
> I'm not thrilled with asking Ants to implement a solution to SSL
> passphrases, and generalizing it to work for this, to get this feature
> accepted. I assume that the reason for asking for that work to be done
> now is because we decided that the current approach for SSL sucks but we
> couldn't actually drop support for it, but we don't want to add other
> features which work in a similar way because, well, it sucks.
My point is that if our support for db-level encryption is as bad as SSL
key passwords, then it will be nearly useless, so we might as well not
have it. Isn't that obvious?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: bruce@momjian.us, sfrost@snowman.net, robertmhaas@gmail.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, ants.aasma@eesti.ee
Subject: Re: WIP: Data at rest encryption
In-Reply-To: <20170615231302.GA11450@momjian.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox