Unix Technical Forum

Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] pgcrypto: pgp_encrypt v3

This is a discussion on Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] pgcrypto: pgp_encrypt v3 within the pgsql Hackers forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches It will be applied as soon ...


Go Back   Unix Technical Forum > Database Server Software > PostgreSQL > pgsql Hackers

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2008, 05:44 AM
Bruce Momjian
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] pgcrypto: pgp_encrypt v3


Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:

http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches

It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Marko Kreen wrote:
>
> Well, I needed to decide, whether it is realistic to implement
> PGP public-key encryption someday, because then I better rename
> the function 'pgp_encrypt' to something more specific immidiately.
>
> But after hacking a while, I soon had working implementation,
> so it seems silly to wait 8.2 for it. This is thanks to the
> fact that for encryption I can ignore most of the OpenPGP
> complex parts - signing and key-management. IMHO they don't
> even make sense inside database, they need an end-user
> application.
>
> In short, the goal of this code is not to be full OpenPGP
> implementation, but just provide more flexible encryption
> than the usual symmetric encryption.
>
> So here is updated pgp_encrypt patch, with support for both
> symmetric and public-key encryption. Also, as Neil requested,
> non-failing regression tests - unsupported parts are replaced
> with empty test named '*-DISABLED'.
>
> Note: it uses OpenSSL bignum code - so without OpenSSL
> no public-key encryption. Look below for plans for
> fixing this dependance.
>
> New names for symmetric-key functions:
>
> pgp_sym_encrypt(data, key)
> pgp_sym_decrypt(data, key)
>
> Public key functions:
>
> pgp_pub_encrypt(data, key)
> pgp_pub_decrypt(data, key)
> pgp_pub_decrypt(data, key, psw)
>
> Plus variants with 'arg' and for bytea.
>
> Not mentioned in previous mails:
>
> armor(bytea) -> text
> dearmor(text) -> bytea
>
> Apply and remove PGP Ascii Armor.
>
>
>
> Implemented feature?:
> * Elgamal-encryption keys - preferred public-key algo for OpenPGP.
> * Password-protected secret keys.
>
> Missing features (needs implementing ASAP):
> * pgp_key_id() - Function to query the ID of a key, and
> the key ID from encrypted packet - so user can implement
> key rings on his own.
>
> Maybe:
> * As it does not parse sign packets, it does not support
> recipient cipher preferences. It is not important for
> planned use-case, but maybe it would be nice to have.
>
> Does not support (and I see no need):
> * RSA-encrypt and sign+encrypt keys - they are deprecated in
> RFC, GnuPG does not even give option to generate them, so IMO
> it's fine to ignore them.
> * Picking a key from list of keys - accepting a keyring in
> place of key.
> * Several encryption subkeys under one key.
> * Any form of signing - that also means no key integrity checks
> (eg - does the subkey belong to master key).
>
>
> Now, the code is significant in the following respect - the
> module 'contrib/pgcrypto' is complete. As I said, I don't
> think rest of the OpenPGP makes sense here, and there isn't
> any other generally-useful crypto functionality that would be
> good to have.
>
>
> Still, there are various things to do:
>
> 1. Polishing of the new PGP code.
> 2. Rework documentation and add FAQ.
> 3. Try to extract OpenSSL and zlib settings from main
> PostgreSQL config. Basically that means that ./configure
> should put them to separate variables, not into main CFLAGS.
> 4. Include strong RNG. Yarrow, Fortuna, ?.
> This is for both symmetricy and public-key encryption.
> 5. Include bignum code (only ops needed for Elgamal).
> This is for public-key encrypt/decrypt.
> 6. Propose crypt(), gen_salt() into mainline for 8.2.
> They are self-contained, except crypt-md5 depends on a MD5
> implentation, which already exists in mainline.
>
>
> Points 4 and 5 are suspicious - I'm not yet sure it can
> be done in manageable way. But without those, the PGP
> functions are unusable in default build. It may not be that
> bad - Yarrow/Fortuna seem to be small pieces only requiring
> external cipher and hash, which we have. And I could
> drop parts of libtommath into separate directory. But
> I don't think such things should be done in hurry.
>
> In the end, I think the code can go into 8.1 in current state -
> requiring OpenSSL. I'll look into dependencies in
> 8.2 timeframe.
>
> --
> marko
>


[ Attachment, skipping... ]

>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq


--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0
www.UnixAdminTalk.com