Thanks, William.
I had missed this reply last week.
We will be switched from 389DS to RHDS sometime in the next few months, and our
audits will start failing us in March if we are still using sslv3.
I'd like to address these gaps pro-actively, and minimize the amount of impact
on my client base by allowing a gradual migration of client systems.
This is why I was asking about adding "secured" systems to the replication
pools, and gradually cutting over the clients.
If the new RHDS replicas "pass" these tests and are in the replication pool
with the 389ds systems that fail, and I could have our ops teams schedule
batches of client systems to reconfigure, we could process through this
gradually.
Here's where I'm falling down:
--> Testing protocols (via sockets except TLS 1.2 and SPDY/NPN)
SSLv2 not offered (OK)
SSLv3 offered (NOT ok)
TLS 1 offered
TLS 1.1 not offered
TLS 1.2 not offered (NOT ok)
SPDY/NPN not offered
--> Testing ~standard cipher lists
Null Ciphers offered (NOT ok)
Anonymous NULL Ciphers not offered (OK)
Anonymous DH Ciphers not offered (OK)
40 Bit encryption offered (NOT ok)
56 Bit encryption Local problem: No 56 Bit encryption configured in
/usr/bin/openssl
Export Ciphers (general) offered (NOT ok)
Low (<=64 Bit) offered (NOT ok)
DES Ciphers offered (NOT ok)
Medium grade encryption offered (NOT ok)
Triple DES Ciphers offered (NOT ok)
High grade encryption offered (OK)
--> Testing (perfect) forward secrecy, (P)FS -- omitting 3DES, RC4 and Null
Encryption here
Not OK: No ciphers supporting Forward Secrecy offered
--> Testing server preferences
Has server cipher order? yes (OK)
Negotiated protocol TLSv1
Negotiated cipher AES256-SHA
Cipher order
SSLv3: AES256-SHA RC4-MD5 RC4-SHA AES128-SHA DES-CBC3-SHA DES-CBC-SHA
EXP-RC4-MD5 EXP-RC2-CBC-MD5
TLSv1: AES256-SHA RC4-MD5 RC4-SHA AES128-SHA DES-CBC3-SHA DES-CBC-SHA
EXP-RC4-MD5 EXP-RC2-CBC-MD5
Alexander Mayberry
Enterprise Systems Engineer
SD Group: EIT Infrastructure – OMA
Enterprise.Systems Engineering.Infrastructure
-----Original Message-----
From: William Brown [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2016 3:53 PM
To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.
Subject: [389-users] Re: PCI SSL TLS certificate requirements change
On Mon, 2015-12-28 at 17:50 +0000, Mayberry, Alexander wrote:
> Hi, we are using SSLv3 certs, and have a multi-master replication
> environment.
>
> I have over 2000 clients currently using these CAs, and updating them
> to TLS seems highly disruptive.
There is no difference between an "SSLv3" and a "TLS" cert. They are just
"certificates" to DS. SSLv3 and TLS are the connection protocols to the
directory server.
>
> Does anyone know of a way to add the updated TLS cert, while still
> honoring the old SSLv3 certs from clients?
> Or perhaps a way to add new replicas in to the environment with the
> new TLS certs, but also add them in to the replication pool with the
> old SSLv3 systems?
>
> Maybe a good guide/white paper on how to achieve this for PCI
> requirements?
So really, what you are doing is certificate rollover. It's a fun / difficult
thing to do.
If you are not changing the signing CA, then you just need to replace the
certificates in a rolling fashion on your DS instances. They will need a
restart to take effect, and all your clients will "just work".
If you are changing the certificate and the CA that signs them, you are in for
some fun.
First, you can do what you are suggesting, and make new replicas that run the
new certs vs the old:
Say you have A and B now in MMR, you can setup two more replicas, A, B, C, D.
If you make sure the certificate's CA's are on ALL A, B, C, D, you can run
certificates signed by CA1 on A and B, and CA2 on C and D. Then you point the
clients where they need to be.
But that's pretty messy I think. And overly complicated. So please don't do
this.
Best bet is on all your clients to roll out the new CA so they accept
CA1 and CA2. Once you have done this, then you can change over one DS instance
out of A and B, to have the new certificate signed by the new CA. Most clients
will work, any that you have missed will have a 50% of throwning a problem at
this point.
Clients that throw an issue, you can point at B in the interim so they work,
then you can update thier ldap CA store to include the new CA, and put them
back as connecting to A and B.
Then you can change over B to the new CA, and repeat the process.
There is really no way around it, but there is a risk when changing CA provider
that you will mess something up.
Finally, if you don't want to mess around that much, you could set
TLS_REQCERT=Never, but I really, really, really don't advise that. Use it as a
work around until you can update the CA bundle.
When I managed a certificate roll over in my past environments, this is what I
did, coordinating with other business units, getting the new CA out, lots of
testing in a stage environment with application etc. Took about 3 months to do
all the testing and due diligence, and pre- loading the new CA, but on the day
of the cut over there were no issues at all.
I hope this helps.
--
Sincerely,
William Brown
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Brisbane
--
389 users mailing list
389-users@%(host_name)s
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[email protected]
