[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9379?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17149694#comment-17149694
]
Bruno Roustant commented on LUCENE-9379:
----------------------------------------
Watchers, I need your help.
I need to know how you would use the encryption, and more precisely how you
would provide the keys.
Is my approach of using either an EncryptingDirectory (in the PR look at
SimpleEncryptingDirectory) or a custom Codec (in the PR look at
EncryptingCodec) appropriate for your use-case?
Note that both SimpleEncryptingDirectory and EncryptingCodec are only in test
packages as I expect the users to write some custom code to use encryption. If
you have an idea of a standard code that could be added to make encryption
easy, please share your idea here.
> Directory based approach for index encryption
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9379
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9379
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Bruno Roustant
> Assignee: Bruno Roustant
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 1h 40m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> The goal is to provide optional encryption of the index, with a scope limited
> to an encryptable Lucene Directory wrapper.
> Encryption is at rest on disk, not in memory.
> This simple approach should fit any Codec as it would be orthogonal, without
> modifying APIs as much as possible.
> Use a standard encryption method. Limit perf/memory impact as much as
> possible.
> Determine how callers provide encryption keys. They must not be stored on
> disk.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
