Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Data Bases > Pgsql Hackers > Re: [0/4] Propo...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 11 of 27 Topic 9282 of 10122
Post > Topic >>

Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches

by josh@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Berkus) May 7, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Andrew, Marc,

> FWIW, I sup****t and think im****tant the row- and column- level access
> controls this seems to be proposing, at least in principle.  Whether
> that's a sup****t that will extend to 2x overhead on everything is
> rather a different matter.  Also, I am more than prepared to trade
> away some cases in order to get a broadly useful functionality (so if
> you can't hide the existence of a table, but all efforts to learn its
> contents don't work, I might be willing to sup****t that trade-off).

Well, there are two different goals we can satisfy.  One is to help 
sup****t the kind of VPS functionality that Veil is designed for, and the 
majority of users want.  The second goal is upholding the kind of 
security systems demanded by highly secure environments which have 
statutory requirements about how security should work.

That is, while Veil-like funcitonality is what most developers want, 
it's not what NSA/Banks/military want, who have their own ideas about 
security.  I think we can conceivably capture both.

I do think that SE functionality which goes beyond reasonable SQL 
requirements should be a build-time options because I don't feasably see 
ways to implement them that won't cause a big performance hit.

Also, I think you should be aware that for serious multilevel security 
hackers (one of whom will be working on Postgres soon) SEPostgres is the 
beginning and not the end.  One of the requirements of many militaries, 
for example, is not merely data hiding by data substitution, where the 
row contents you see depend on your security clearance.

Also, re: pg_dump: it's actually a desired feature that, for example, 
some users only be able to dump a subset of the database.  Including 
some DBAs.  One of the issues which SE/Mulitlevel tries to address is 
"what happens if you don't trust your DBA 100%?"  So if we can retain 
that, it's actually a feature and not a bug.

--Josh





-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
 




 27 Posts in Topic:
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
kaigai@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-30 18:01:57 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
josh@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (  2008-04-30 18:01:58 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
jd@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (&q  2008-04-30 19:11:34 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-05 21:58:11 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-05 16:39:25 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-06 14:56:41 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
ajs@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (A  2008-05-06 15:11:38 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-06 15:28:25 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
ajs@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (A  2008-05-06 16:00:13 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-06 17:44:44 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
josh@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (  2008-05-07 11:19:56 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
kaigai@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-07 18:02:15 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-07 10:06:17 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
kaigai@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-09 19:10:32 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-09 10:23:12 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
kaigai@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-12 16:18:54 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-12 10:30:13 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
andrew@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-12 10:45:55 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-12 10:52:37 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
kaigai@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-13 18:46:56 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
kaigai@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-07 14:52:27 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
kaigai@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-08 15:06:51 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
kaigai@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-30 15:08:56 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
bruce@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-06-25 23:58:09 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
josh@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (  2008-06-26 07:43:39 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
kaigai@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-06-27 00:32:32 
Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
josh@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (  2008-06-26 09:29:44 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Sun Sep 7 13:19:11 CDT 2008.