Mark Mielke <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Nikolaus Rath <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It has been requested
>> (https://bitbucket.org/nikratio/s3ql/issue/62/add-support-for-aws-server-side-encryption)
>> that I enable AWS server-side encryption in S3QL.
>>
>> I am ambigious on the matter. On one side, there does not seem to be
>> any technical drawback. On the other side, there does not seem to be
>> any (significant) technical advantage either, so I'm still hesitant
>> to enable this without a good reason.
>>
>> If anyone has some thoughts on the question, please chime in.
>
> Presuming I understand how it works... I think having AWS perform the
> encryption partially defeats the purpose of encryption.
[..]
Oh, absolutely. S3QL would continue to do client-side encryption as
before. The question is: is there any good reason to activate (or not
activate) server-side encryption *in addition* to that.
I am very irritated by this feature for the same reasons you mentioned
above. It doesn't seem to add any value, but it doesn't seem to have any
drawbacks either. So why is Amazon even requiring a choice at all?
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"s3ql" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
