Re: storing an explicit nonce - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: storing an explicit nonce
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYZ6v1wXRLpe0Q6tFGnrbB3YzXj0r6EriGO4ZozO5qEcA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: storing an explicit nonce  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:31 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> What does that protect against that I was concerned about? That still
> allows hint bits to be leaked, via
>
> 1) replay WAL record with FPI
> 2) hint bit change during read
> 3) incremental page change
>
> vs 1) 3). Even if we declare that OK, it doesn't actually address the
> whole issue of WAL replay not necessarily re-creating bit identical page
> contents.

You're right. That seems fatal, as it would lead to encrypting the
different versions of the page with the IV on the master and the
standby, and the differences would consist of old data that could be
recovered by XORing the two encrypted page versions. To be clear, it
is tuple data that would be recovered, not just hint bits.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: storing an explicit nonce
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: storing an explicit nonce