Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-20: Dynamic Data Masking
It's been 9 days since we started the poll, and we haven't had any new vote since Monday. So we are still on 5 votes for A and 2 votes for B. The poll results doesn't seem to oppose the CEP. If no one has anything else to add, I'll start the actual vote thread. On Tue, 13 Sept 2022 at 15:05, Andrés de la Peña wrote: > That's 5 votes for A and 2 votes for B so far. None of these options > opposes to the CEP, so I think we can probably start the vote, unless we > want to wait longer for the poll. > > On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 13:51, Benjamin Lerer wrote: > >> A >> >> Le mer. 7 sept. 2022 à 17:02, Jeremiah D Jordan < >> jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >>> A >>> >>> On Sep 7, 2022, at 8:58 AM, Benedict wrote: >>> >>> Well, I am not convinced these changes will materially impact the >>> outcome, but at least we’ll have some extra fun collating the votes. >>> >>> >>> On 7 Sep 2022, at 14:05, Andrés de la Peña wrote: >>> >>> >>> The poll makes sense to me. I would slightly change it to: >>> >>> A) We shouldn't prefer neither approach, and I agree to the implementor >>> selecting the table schema approach for this CEP >>> B) We should prefer the view approach, but I am not opposed to the >>> implementor selecting the table schema approach for this CEP >>> C) We should NOT implement the table schema approach, and should >>> implement the view approach >>> D) We should NOT implement the table view approach, and should implement >>> the schema approach >>> E) We should NOT implement the table schema approach, and should >>> implement some other scheme (or not implement this feature) >>> >>> Where my vote is for A. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 13:12, Benedict wrote: >>> I’m not convinced there’s been adequate resolution over which approach is adopted. I know you have expressed a preference for the table schema approach, but the weight of other opinion so far appears to be against this approach - even if it is broadly adopted by other databases. I will note that Postgres does not adopt this approach, it has a more sophisticated security label approach that has not been proposed by anybody so far. I think extra weight should be given to the implementer’s preference, so while I personally do not like the table schema approach, I am happy to accept this is an industry norm, and leave the decision to you. However, we should ensure the community as a whole endorses this. I think an indicative poll should be undertaken first, eg: A) We should implement the table schema approach, as proposed B) We should prefer the view approach, but I am not opposed to the implementor selecting the table schema approach for this CEP C) We should NOT implement the table schema approach, and should implement the view approach D) We should NOT implement the table schema approach, and should implement some other scheme (or not implement this feature) Where my vote is B On 7 Sep 2022, at 12:50, Andrés de la Peña wrote: If nobody has more concerns regarding the CEP I will start the vote tomorrow. On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 13:18, Andrés de la Peña wrote: > Is there enough support here for VIEWS to be the implementation >> strategy for displaying masking functions? > > > I'm not sure that views should be "the" strategy for masking > functions. We have multiple approaches here: > > 1) CQL functions only. Users can decide to use the masking functions > on their own will. I think most dbs allow this pattern of usage, which is > quite straightforward. Obviously, it doesn't allow admins to decide > enforce > users seeing only masked data. Nevertheless, it's still useful for trusted > database users generating masked data that will be consumed by the end > users of the application. > > 2) Masking functions attached to specific columns. This way the same > queries will see different data (masked or not) depending on the > permissions of the user running the query. It has the advantage of not > requiring to change the queries that users with different permissions run. > The downside is that users would need to query the schema if they need to > know whether a column is masked, unless we change the names of the > returned > columns. This is the approach offered by Azure/SQL Server, PostgreSQL, IBM > Db2, Oracle, MariaDB/MaxScale and SnowFlake. All these databases support > applying the masking function to columns on the base table, and some of > them also allow to apply masking to views. > > 3) Masking functions as part of projected views. This ways users might > need to query the view appropriate for their permissions instead of the > base table. This might mean changing the queries if the masking policy is > changed by the admin. MySQL recomme
Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-20: Dynamic Data Masking
My vote is B, but I think you should go ahead with the actual vote thread. Cheers, Derek On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 4:05 AM Andrés de la Peña wrote: > It's been 9 days since we started the poll, and we haven't had any new > vote since Monday. So we are still on 5 votes for A and 2 votes for B. > > The poll results doesn't seem to oppose the CEP. If no one has anything > else to add, I'll start the actual vote thread. > > On Tue, 13 Sept 2022 at 15:05, Andrés de la Peña > wrote: > >> That's 5 votes for A and 2 votes for B so far. None of these options >> opposes to the CEP, so I think we can probably start the vote, unless we >> want to wait longer for the poll. >> >> On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 13:51, Benjamin Lerer wrote: >> >>> A >>> >>> Le mer. 7 sept. 2022 à 17:02, Jeremiah D Jordan < >>> jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> A On Sep 7, 2022, at 8:58 AM, Benedict wrote: Well, I am not convinced these changes will materially impact the outcome, but at least we’ll have some extra fun collating the votes. On 7 Sep 2022, at 14:05, Andrés de la Peña wrote: The poll makes sense to me. I would slightly change it to: A) We shouldn't prefer neither approach, and I agree to the implementor selecting the table schema approach for this CEP B) We should prefer the view approach, but I am not opposed to the implementor selecting the table schema approach for this CEP C) We should NOT implement the table schema approach, and should implement the view approach D) We should NOT implement the table view approach, and should implement the schema approach E) We should NOT implement the table schema approach, and should implement some other scheme (or not implement this feature) Where my vote is for A. On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 13:12, Benedict wrote: > I’m not convinced there’s been adequate resolution over which approach > is adopted. I know you have expressed a preference for the table schema > approach, but the weight of other opinion so far appears to be against > this > approach - even if it is broadly adopted by other databases. I will note > that Postgres does not adopt this approach, it has a more sophisticated > security label approach that has not been proposed by anybody so far. > > I think extra weight should be given to the implementer’s preference, > so while I personally do not like the table schema approach, I am happy to > accept this is an industry norm, and leave the decision to you. > > However, we should ensure the community as a whole endorses this. I > think an indicative poll should be undertaken first, eg: > > A) We should implement the table schema approach, as proposed > B) We should prefer the view approach, but I am not opposed to the > implementor selecting the table schema approach for this CEP > C) We should NOT implement the table schema approach, and should > implement the view approach > D) We should NOT implement the table schema approach, and should > implement some other scheme (or not implement this feature) > > Where my vote is B > > On 7 Sep 2022, at 12:50, Andrés de la Peña > wrote: > > > If nobody has more concerns regarding the CEP I will start the vote > tomorrow. > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 13:18, Andrés de la Peña > wrote: > >> Is there enough support here for VIEWS to be the implementation >>> strategy for displaying masking functions? >> >> >> I'm not sure that views should be "the" strategy for masking >> functions. We have multiple approaches here: >> >> 1) CQL functions only. Users can decide to use the masking functions >> on their own will. I think most dbs allow this pattern of usage, which is >> quite straightforward. Obviously, it doesn't allow admins to decide >> enforce >> users seeing only masked data. Nevertheless, it's still useful for >> trusted >> database users generating masked data that will be consumed by the end >> users of the application. >> >> 2) Masking functions attached to specific columns. This way the same >> queries will see different data (masked or not) depending on the >> permissions of the user running the query. It has the advantage of not >> requiring to change the queries that users with different permissions >> run. >> The downside is that users would need to query the schema if they need to >> know whether a column is masked, unless we change the names of the >> returned >> columns. This is the approach offered by Azure/SQL Server, PostgreSQL, >> IBM >> Db2, Oracle, MariaDB/MaxScale and SnowFlake. All these databases support >> applying the masking function to columns on the base table, and some of >> them also allow to appl
