Greetings, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2021-05-25 17:15:55 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > > > We already discussed that there are too many other ways to break system > > > integrity that are not encrypted/integrity-checked, e.g., changes to > > > clog. Do you disagree? > > > > We had agreed that this wasn't something that was strictly required in > > the first version and I continue to agree with that. On the other hand, > > if we decide that we ultimately need to use an independent nonce and > > further that we can make room in the special space for it, then it's > > trivial to also include the tag and we absolutely should (or make it > > optional to do so) in that case. > > The page format for clog and that for relation data is unrelated.
Indeed they are, but that's not relevant to the thrust of this specific debate. Bruce is arguing that because clog is unprotected that it's not useful to protect relation data, with regard to data integrity validation as provided by AES-GCM using/storing tags. I dispute this, as relation data is primary data while clog, for all its value, is still metadata. Yes, impacting the metadata has an impact on the primary data, but it doesn't *change* that primary data at its core (and it's also more likely to be detected than random bit flipping in the relation data would be, which is possible if you're only encrypting and not providing any integrity validation). Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
