"For critical passwords, use split passwords with dual custody." Could anyone comment on the practice? Does it mean that I have the first half of password and other guy has the other? We can only log in by combining password? How do we type the password in by not sharing a physical computer?
Securing PostgreSQL [pdf]
61–70 of 72 posts
Re: Securing PostgreSQL [pdf]
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try us! https://www.databaselabs.io/ . Professional PG hosting in Google, AWS, and DigitalOcean. Happy to discuss more details -- pjlegato at databaselabs.io.
good to know. i just checked out your website on my phone . i have to do a google login auth before i can see pricing? i wanted to see what you offer... replication strategy, etc EDIT: I just went to your desktop website and can see pricing. Do you do failover ? AWS RDS does failover and high availability - which makes it worth it. If you can do high availability on digitalocean. That will be killer.
Re: Securing PostgreSQL [pdf]
#63The advice on FDE is misleading if not flat out wrong. It's NOT just to protect against media theft. It's also about "shit, the drive crashed. How do I destroy the data on it before throwing it in the trash?" Same with replacing a smaller drive with a bigger drive. Yes, DBAN it, but that won't take care of remapped sectors. It's easier to destroy an encryption key than it is to destroy the data.
The point is that FDE protects you principally from loss of physical custody, and the reason the slide is there is because lots of developers think that FDE somehow helps in the (vastly more likely) scenario where your machine gets owned up over the Internet.
It's more true to say, like you do, that it's about loss of physical custody. But the presentation said theft.
You are more correct in your phrasing, but even that doesn't cover my example of swapping hard drives around. If someone hacks the low security server and finds that it still has customer data in the unwritten blocks of the FS, or in remapped sectors, then that's not loss of physical custody, but it would have been prevented by FDE.
And honestly, who would not scan for deleted data after hacking a machine? It's not a tiny detail.
Re: Securing PostgreSQL [pdf]
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that FDE protects you principally from loss of physical custody, and the reason the slide is there is because lots of developers think that FDE somehow helps in the (vastly more likely) scenario where your machine gets owned up over the Internet.
Yeah, but I'd rather not fight misunderstandings with misinformation. It's more true to say, like you do, that it's about loss of physical custody. But the presentation said theft. You are more correct in your phrasing, but even that doesn't cover my example of swapping hard drives around. If someone hacks the low security server and finds that it still has customer data in the unwritten blocks of the FS, or in remap…
Re: Securing PostgreSQL [pdf]
#65I have a question about storing the encryption keys. How would one actually securely store them and distribute them among the application servers in a cloud environment. I don't buy into the 12-factor-application way of storing sensitive data in an environment variable ("ps ae" and a local intruder has the data). Storing it in a secured file on the server requires the file to be distributed by the provisioning servic…
The problem here is that if your application requires the use of encryption keys, and the user which runs this application gets compromised, you have a problem anyway - since like most applications, yours probably also doesn't care about the key's security once it's in memory. If they get that far, the only thing you can do is replace/revoke those keys and take the hit.
In more secure non-cloud setups, encryption/decryption is being done by something like a HSM, a box with only one interface (usually PKCS#11) which can be used to encrypt, decrypt and sign stuff, and you never see the keys. You have software HSM's - and you could try to apply the same principal in the cloud, where you have an isolated box with only the very well protected and audited soft HSM running.
But not sure the cost of learning and maintaining such a system is worth it for most situations, where I would use an API service like Hashicorp's Vault. Most of the compromising of keys and secrets doesn't happen on your servers, but on your or some developer/user's work machine. How many crap is exchanged over email, dropbox links, slack, skype, ...? Keeping keys out of the hand of the user and eliminating the need for your users to have them at all is higher on my priority list.
Re: Securing PostgreSQL [pdf]
#66So true, which is why I find it kind of awkward when I say to young developers/business owners they should pay for a professional PostgreSQL hosting and they argue it's open source and they can host their DBs on a $25 (or less) Digital Ocean instance. Until it's too late, I guess.
We (databaselabs.io) are the first Postgres as a Service on DigitalOcean. We fight this sales battle on a daily basis. The problem is that younger devs/owners are much less likely to have ever experienced any significant outage, so it's a non-issue for them. They can't see why they should pay good money to prevent it. We've had much better results with slightly older and more experienced people, who realize that our…
Re: Securing PostgreSQL [pdf]
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try us! https://www.databaselabs.io/ . Professional PG hosting in Google, AWS, and DigitalOcean. Happy to discuss more details -- pjlegato at databaselabs.io.
good to know. i just checked out your website on my phone . i have to do a google login auth before i can see pricing? i wanted to see what you offer... replication strategy, etc EDIT: I just went to your desktop website and can see pricing. Do you do failover ? AWS RDS does failover and high availability - which makes it worth it. If you can do high availability on digitalocean. That will be killer.
Yes, we set up and run autofailover upon request. It's getting rolled into the UI this month. In the meantime, write support@databaselabs.io and we'll turn that on for you manually.
Re: Securing PostgreSQL [pdf]
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
We (databaselabs.io) are the first Postgres as a Service on DigitalOcean. We fight this sales battle on a daily basis. The problem is that younger devs/owners are much less likely to have ever experienced any significant outage, so it's a non-issue for them. They can't see why they should pay good money to prevent it. We've had much better results with slightly older and more experienced people, who realize that our…
i am curious, you are commenting on a post about secure postgres but after signing up for your service i see that the database i created is publicly available, on the standard port 5432, with the default postgres username. the only thing stopping me is a password, no certificate required. i am not a postgres expert but how is this not extremely insecure?
We do support certificate-based logins and firewalls with IP whitelists. They're just not on by default. Frankly, the reason is because almost all customers don't care about having a very high level of security if that implies doing more work (setting up certificates, whitelisting IPs.) Moreover, they actively prefer to have "simpler and less secure" over "more complex and more secure."
We've done experiments with certificates and firewall IP whitelists and so on. Almost all customers and potential customers reject these things. They say they want a simple password that just works from anywhere.
We had to choose between being slightly less secure and having customers, versus being highly secure and having no customers. Since the business can't survive without any customers, that choice was easy.
That said, if you do want any of those things turned on for your database, just write support@databaselabs.io.
Re: Securing PostgreSQL [pdf]
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
We (databaselabs.io) are the first Postgres as a Service on DigitalOcean. We fight this sales battle on a daily basis. The problem is that younger devs/owners are much less likely to have ever experienced any significant outage, so it's a non-issue for them. They can't see why they should pay good money to prevent it. We've had much better results with slightly older and more experienced people, who realize that our…
How are you guaranteeing 100% uptime if your service relies on third-party infrastructures?
We used to have a more engineery 99.95% uptime guarantee, but customers empirically prefer the financial guarantee over that.
Re: Securing PostgreSQL [pdf]
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but I'd rather not fight misunderstandings with misinformation. It's more true to say, like you do, that it's about loss of physical custody. But the presentation said theft. You are more correct in your phrasing, but even that doesn't cover my example of swapping hard drives around. If someone hacks the low security server and finds that it still has customer data in the unwritten blocks of the FS, or in remap…
If you have PII on a disk, and then you hand that disk to another organization not prepared to protect PII, you have surrendered physical custody of the PII. The distinction you're making is basically the same as the distinction between a thief cinderblocking your car window to steal your laptop, and you leaving your laptop in the back seat of a cab. Yes: FDE helps both if your drive is physically stolen, and if you…
That hard drive is then forever tainted by PII.
With FDE, that is not the case.