On 06/13/2017 10:20 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Joe Conway (m...@joeconway.com) wrote:
>> Except shell escaping issues, etc, etc
> That's not an issue- we're talking about reading the stdout of some
> other process, there's no shell escaping that has to be done there.

It could be an issue depending on how the user stores their master key.

> I disagree that proper key management is "simple".  If we really get to
> a point where we think we have a simple answer to it then perhaps that
> can be implemented in addition to the encryption piece in the same
> release cycle- but they certainly don't need to be in the same patch,
> nor do we need to make good key management a requirement for adding
> encryption support.

I never said key management was simple. Indeed it is the most complex
and hazardous part of all this as you said earlier. What is simple is
implementing a master key encrypting actual keys scheme. Keeping the
user's master key management out of this design is unchanged by what I
proposed, and what I proposed is a superior yet simple method. Yes, it
can be done separately but what is the point? We should at least discuss
it as part of the design.

> No, but it seriously changes the level of complexity.  I feel like we're
> trying to go from zero to light speed here because there's an idea that
> it's "simple" to add X, Y or Z additional requirement beyond the basic
> feature, but we don't have anything yet.

I think that is hyperbole. It does not significantly add to the
complexity of what is being discussed.


Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to