lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com>
Subject Re: Attached proposed modifications to Lucene 2.0 to support Field.Store.Encrypted
Date Sat, 02 Dec 2006 06:50:46 GMT
I think you misunderstood. If you do not have encrypted swap (like  
OSX provides for) then you encryption is pointless as anyone can  
inspect the data as it it loaded into the heap by lucene - bypassing  
the encryption.

I also think you underestimated the impact on the size of the  
indexes, as most secure encryption schemes are going to pad the  
payloads to a minimum of 128 bits, and usually much more.

This is going to make a HUGE difference in the size of the index.

On Dec 1, 2006, at 2:00 PM, negrinv wrote:

>
> Good news for OSX users! but what about all the others, should I  
> say the
> majority??
> One more reason for encrypting at field level.
> Victor
>
>
> Robert Engels wrote:
>>
>> Not if running under OSX with encrypted swap turned on ! :)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Nicolas Lalev�e <nicolas.lalevee@anyware-tech.com>
>>> Sent: Dec 1, 2006 4:49 AM
>>> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Attached proposed modifications to Lucene 2.0 to  
>>> support
> Field.Store.Encrypted
>>>
>>> Le Vendredi 1 D�cembre 2006 11:10, negrinv a �crit�:
>>>> Nicolas Lalev�e-2 wrote:
>>>>> Le Vendredi 1 D�cembre 2006 01:33, negrinv a �crit :
>>>>>> Thank you Robert for your commnets. I am inclined to agree  
>>>>>> with you,
>>>> but
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> would like to establish first of all if simplicity of  
>>>>>> implementation
>>>> is
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> overriding consideration. But before I dwell on that let me  
>>>>>> say that
>>>> i
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> discovered that I am not a master of DIFF file creation with  
>>>>>> Eclipse.
>>>>>> The diff file attachement to my original posting is absurdly  
>>>>>> large
>>>> and
>>>>>> not correct. I have therefore attached a zip file containing the
>>>>>> complete source code of the classes I modified. I leave it to  
>>>>>> others
>>>> to
>>>>>> extract the
>>>>>> diffs properly.
>>>>>> Back to the issue. So far the implementation has not been  
>>>>>> difficult
>>>>>> considering that I knew nothing about Lucene internals before I
>>>> started.
>>>>>> The reason is that Lucene is very well structured and the changes
>>>> just
>>>>>> fitted nicely by adding some code in the right place with minimal
>>>>>> changes to the existing code. But I admit that the proposed
>>>>>> implementation so far is not complete and more work is  
>>>>>> required to
>>>>>> overcome some of its restrictions. While I like your idea I  
>>>>>> believe
>>>> that
>>>>>> it imposed too large a
>>>>>> granularity on the encrypted data, all fields will all kinds  
>>>>>> of data
>>>>>> will be encrypted including  images and others which normally  
>>>>>> would
>>>> be
>>>>>> left alone, thus adding to the performance penalty due to  
>>>>>> encryption.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't agree with you here. In Lucene, you will encrypt the field
>>>> data,
>>>>> the
>>>>> field names, and the tokens : I would say that is represents at  
>>>>> least
>>>> 2/3
>>>>> of
>>>>> the index size. Then, with the implementation you suggest, I think
>>>> (sorry
>>>>> I
>>>>> didn't took time to see you patch) that every time a lucene  
>>>>> data need
>>>> to
>>>>> be
>>>>> read, it is decrypted each time. With an encrypted FS, your kernel
>>>> will
>>>>> maintain a cache in RAM for you, so it won't hurt so much.
>>>>> It needs some bench to see what is effectively the best, but I  
>>>>> have
>>>> doubt
>>>>> that
>>>>> your solution will be faster.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nicolas.
>>>>
>>>> Nicolas, I am all in favour of some tests to establish which  
>>>> solution is
>>>> best, but I have to say that I don't believe file system or  
>>>> directory
>>>> encryption in Lucene is really justified. Most operating system  
>>>> already
>>>> provide this feature, although they are system-wide or policy-based
>>>> solution, hence not always within individual user control.
>>>> But if the issue is user control, then I believe Lucene should  
>>>> provide
>>>> maximum granularity when it comes to choice of data to encrypt.
>>>> The issue I believe is whether some form of encryption should be
>>>> provided
>>>> within Lucene to enable application developers to create  
>>>> applications
>>>> which
>>>> offer some data protection under user control, with a minimum of  
>>>> impact,
>>>> where by impact I mean both on peformance and workload either in  
>>>> Lucene
>>>> code or user code.
>>>
>>> In fact you mean a user that has no control of it's machine, and  
>>> that
> cannot
>>> encrypt his partition. Here you will have the issue with the  
>>> swap : Lucene
>>> will decrypt the data in RAM, that can possibly pushed on the  
>>> swap... I
> know
>>> this is extreme, but it's a security hole.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Nicolas LALEV�E
>>> Solutions & Technologies
>>> ANYWARE TECHNOLOGIES
>>> Tel : +33 (0)5 61 00 52 90
>>> Fax : +33 (0)5 61 00 51 46
>>> http://www.anyware-tech.com
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Attached- 
> proposed-modifications-to-Lucene-2.0-to-support- 
> Field.Store.Encrypted-tf2727614.html#a7645198
> Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at  
> Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message