On 2015-03-04 11:06:33 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andres Freund (andres@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> > On 2015-03-04 10:52:30 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > The first is a "don't break anything" approach which would move the
> > > needle between "network data sensitivity" and "on-disk data sensitivity"
> > > a bit back in the direction of making the network data more sensitive.
> >
> > I think that's a really bad tradeoff for pg. There's pretty good reasons
> > not to encrypt database connections. I don't think you really can
> > compare routinely encrypted stuff like imap and submission with
> > pg. Neither is it as harmful to end up with leaked hashes for database
> > users as it is for a email provider's authentication database.
>
> I'm confused.. The paragraph you reply to here discusses an approach
> which doesn't include encrypting the database connection.
An increase in "network data sensitivity" also increases the need for
encryption.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services