Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 11:27:26 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Encrypted column
Message-ID: <20070605152726.GU4818@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
References: <46645B01.6070605@terra.com.br> <4664983F.4010700@burntmail.com>
	<46656398.1090203@cox.net> <20070605135951.GB8140@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<466572F0.3070900@cox.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <466572F0.3070900@cox.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:28:00AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> 
> If he is a CC customer, the system (which I am DBA of) bills his 
> card directly, saving the customer much time and effort.

So surely what you have is a completely separate system that has
exactly one interface to it, that is signaled to provide a
transaction number and that only ever returns such a transaction
number to the "online" system, and that is very tightly secured,
right?

It is possible to make trade-offs in an intelligent manner, for sure,
but you sure as heck don't want that kind of data stored online with
simple reversible encryption.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness.
		--George Orwell