Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Perimeter

11/20/2009
08:00 AM
Adrian Lane
Adrian Lane
Commentary
50%
50%

Two Ways To Encrypt Your Database

File/operating system level-encryption is actually implemented outside the database engine -- but it's still a form of database encryption. And it's referred to as "transparent" encryption because it doesn't require any changes to the database, or calling an application.

File/operating system level-encryption is actually implemented outside the database engine -- but it's still a form of database encryption. And it's referred to as "transparent" encryption because it doesn't require any changes to the database, or calling an application.In my last post, I introduced transparent database encryption perform as part of the native database technology. This is in contrast to file/OS encryption, which performs encryption tasks as part of the underlying operating system, independent of the database platform.

File/OS encryption works by intercepting the database's writes to disk, encrypting data blocks before storing them. Conversely, data is decrypted as the database requests information from disk. It can be used to encrypt an entire disk or just specific folders where the data is stored. This provides a degree of granularity if you only want to encrypt some portion of the database or a single database instance in a larger installation.

If you are confused that two database encryption technologies with radically different implementations both are considered "transparent," you're not alone. So let's compare and contrast transparent database encryption proper and file/OS encryption.

Both methods protect data stored on disk or media from direct inspection. Both can be easily retrofitted into existing database environments. Both operate seamlessly and do not require modifications to the database structure, queries, or calling application platform to use. Both offer industry-standard encryption algorithms and optional external key-management support. And perhaps most importantly, both are acceptable for many compliance mandates, such as PCI.

So when deciding which one to adopt, you should consider:

Ease of deployment: OS or file-level encryption is installed as a component of the operating system, requiring a software installation, configuration, possibly a recompilation of the kernel, and a system reboot. Database transparent encryption gets the edge in simplicity as it usually only involves changing some of the database configuration and, as worst, a database restart. In the big picture, both are simple operations.

Performance: My experience shows both are very close. Informal testing and feedback from several clients indicate database transparent encryption hovers around 6 percent overhead for typical environments. File/OS layer encryption was around 3 percent overhead, giving the external variant a slight edge. This is not a scientific evaluation and can vary a lot given how the database is used, but the distinction is somewhat irrelevant as both offer satisfactory performance.

Vendor Association: Let's face it, trust in the vendor and ability to haggle on price play a part as well. Many firms have a long-standing relationship with their database vendor and trust their products -- not to say file/OS is less reliable, but established trust is a big deal to many firms I speak with. Couple that with customers leveraging pricing and support as a bundle, and discounted pricing wins many customers over.

Versatility. Odds are you have multiple security and compliance issues to address, and being able to leverage a single investment to solve multiple security problems is a big advantage. As file/OS products encrypt general files as well as database contents, you can secure nondatabase content. This single product can be used for multiple purposes with a single, unified interface. And for companies that run more than one type of database, file/OS options give a unified approach to database encryption. The file/OS options provide a breadth of coverage with greater flexibility.

Adrian Lane is an analyst/CTO with Securosis LLC, an independent security consulting practice. Special to Dark Reading. Adrian Lane is a Security Strategist and brings over 25 years of industry experience to the Securosis team, much of it at the executive level. Adrian specializes in database security, data security, and secure software development. With experience at Ingres, Oracle, and ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Firms Improve Threat Detection but Face Increasingly Disruptive Attacks
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/20/2020
Ransomware Damage Hit $11.5B in 2019
Dark Reading Staff 2/20/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-17274
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
NetApp FAS 8300/8700 and AFF A400 Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) firmware versions 13.x prior to 13.1P1 were shipped with a default account enabled that could allow unauthorized arbitrary command execution via local access.
CVE-2019-17275
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
OnCommand Cloud Manager versions prior to 3.8.0 are susceptible to arbitrary code execution by remote attackers.
CVE-2020-3169
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
A vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco FXOS Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying Linux operating system with a privilege level of root on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of arguments passed to a spe...
CVE-2020-3170
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
A vulnerability in the NX-API feature of Cisco NX-OS Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause an NX-API system process to unexpectedly restart. The vulnerability is due to incorrect validation of the HTTP header of a request that is sent to the NX-API. An attacker could expl...
CVE-2020-3171
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
A vulnerability in the local management (local-mgmt) CLI of Cisco FXOS Software and Cisco UCS Manager Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system (OS) of an affected device. The vulnerability is due to insufficient input vali...