-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Dependent dbs #10
Comments
Yeah, that's a good point. If we encrypt it, though, then the index is almost useless because you can't iterate it (assuming we encrypt the keys). The only case where I think this may make sense would be to encrypt the values but NOT the keys, but then we'd need to trust the user to know that their keys will be unencrypted. Else we could let them encrypt the keys, but with the knowledge that their keys won't be ordered anymore. Personally I've never used values much, so for me I would just make an index on a key that doesn't need to be encrypted and then use |
That is a good point, currently crypto pouch does only encrypt values not On Mon, Mar 23, 2015, 8:42 AM Nolan Lawson [email protected] wrote:
|
cloudwall.me implements encryption of underlying Pouch docs as per-doc option. Approach I used was:
Reason for these complex policy is rather simple – docs in db contain not only data, but some kind of metainfo over data. So what I want to say – some meta better kept readable for views and end users. |
So that is roughly how crypto pouch works, the issue is that when used with On Mon, Mar 23, 2015, 11:31 AM ermouth [email protected] wrote:
|
presumably you could just call whatever transforms you want inside of your |
To avoid leak |
When an index is created the new dependent db won't have the transform, E.g.if you use crypto pouch your query index is not encrypted
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: