[neotrope]

> All this brings us to the project I run: Enquo. It takes application-layer encryption to a new level, by providing a language- and framework-agnostic cryptosystem that also enables encrypted data to be efficiently queried by the database.

If you want people to use this, don't bury the lede.

Is this a problem worth solving? How does aws/gcp/azure solve for this?

[hn_throwaway_99]

> Is this a problem worth solving? How does aws/gcp/azure solve for this?

Yes. I had to build something very similar, and neither GCP nor AWS "solve" this at all. They provide good building block to solve it, like KMS and tools for envelope encryption (e.g. https://cloud.google.com/sql/docs/postgres/client-side-encry...), but importantly if you want to search on this encrypted data you need to role your own with something like blind indexes (the linked project explains some of the problems with that), and even harder is if you need to sort by that data, which this Enquo project also addresses.

There are a bunch of "PII vaulting services", companies like Very Good Security, that provide similar solutions, but it would be ideal to have this all securely encrypted in the DB if you're already using Postgres.

[TheDong]

First, you complain that the person started by explaining the current state of the art and why a better solution is needed ("don't bury the lede").

Second you wonder if the problem is worth solving and what the current state of the art is, which is exactly what the text you're complaining about answered clearly.

I'm personally quite happy with how they formatted this blogpost.

[vbezhenar]

I know deployments which chosen Oracle because Oracle supports encryption and Postgres does not. They don't really care about encryption, but they need to check a mark for compliance.