Re: storing an explicit nonce

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 04:09:13PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> The above article, at least, suggested encrypting the sector number
> using the second key and then multiplying that times 2^(block number),
> where those blocks were actually AES 128bit blocks.  The article further
> claims that this is what's used in things like Bitlocker, TrueCrypt,
> VeraCrypt and OpenSSL.
> 
> While the documentation isn't super clear, I'm taking that to mean that
> when you actually use EVP_aes_128_xts() in OpenSSL, and you provide it
> with a 256-bit key (twice the size of the AES key length function), and
> you give it a 'tweak', that what you would actually be passing in would
> be the "sector number" in the above method, or for us perhaps it would
> be relfilenode+block number, or maybe just block number but it seems
> like it'd be better to include the relfilenode to me.

If you go in that direction, you should make sure pg_upgrade preserves
what you use (it does not preserve relfilenode, just pg_class.oid), and
CREATE DATABASE still works with a simple file copy.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian          https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.