Greetings,
* Craig Ringer (craig@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 22:30, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > - All decryption happens in a given backend when it's sending data to
> > the client
>
> That is not what I think of as TDE. But upon review, it looks like I'm
> wrong, and the usual usage of TDE is for server-side-only encryption
> at-rest.
Yes, that's typically what TDE is, at least in the relational DBMS
world.
> But when I'm asked about TDE, people are generally actually asking for data
> that's encrypted at rest and in transit, where the client driver is
> responsible for data encryption/decryption transparently to the
> application. The server is expected to be able to mark columns as
> encrypted, so it can report the column's true datatype while storing a
> bytea-like encrypted value for it instead. In this case the server does not
> know the column encryption/decryption key at all, and it cannot perform any
> operations on the data except for input and output.
This is definitely also a thing though I'm not sure what it's called,
exactly. Having everything happen on the client side is also,
certainly, a better solution as it removes the risk of root on the
database server being able to gain access to the data. This is also
what I recommend in a lot of situations- have the client side
application handle the encryption/decryption, working with a vaulting
solution ideally, but it'd definitely be neat to add this as a
capability to PG.
> Some people ask for indexable encrypted columns, but I tend to explain to
> them how impractical and inefficient that is. You can support hash indexes
> if you don't salt the encrypted data, but that greatly weakens the
> encryption by allowing attackers to use dictionary attacks and other brute
> force techniques efficiently. And you can't support b-tree > and < without
> very complex encryption schemes (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption).
I'm not sure why you wouldn't salt the hash..? That's pretty important,
imv, and, of course, you have to store the salt but that shouldn't be
that big of a deal, I wouldn't think. Agreed that you can't support
b-tree (even with complex encryption schemes..., I've read some papers
about how just </> is enough to be able to glean a good bit of info
from, not super relevant to the overall discussion here so I won't go
hunt them down right now, but if there's interest, I can try to do so).
> I see quite a lot of demand for this column level driver-assisted
> encryption. I think it'd actually be quite simple for the PostgreSQL server
> to provide support for it too, since most of the work is done by the
> driver. But I won't go into the design here since this thread appears to be
> about encryption at rest only, fully server-side.
Yes, that's what this thread is about, but I very much like the idea of
driver-assisted encryption on the client side and would love it if
someone had time to work on it.
Thanks,
Stephen