On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 13:05 +0100, Martin Kosek wrote: > On 03/04/2014 11:14 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: > > On 4.3.2014 22:53, Simo Sorce wrote: > >> On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 22:38 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote: > >>> On 4.3.2014 22:15, Simo Sorce wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 21:25 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote: > ... > >> I guess my only reservation is about whether DRM storage is replicated > >> or not. Although both the K/M and DNS cases do not require the Vault to > >> be online at all times because the keys will be downloaded and stored > >> locally and only needs to be accessed when they changed, there is the > >> problem of having all keys in a SPOF, that should not happen. > > According to http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Password_Vault#Replication the > > replication is available for DRM, we just need to use it. > > > > IMHO a vault without replication is not useful anyway. Users are not happy > > when > > their passwords disappear ;-) > > > >> The additional thing about the Vault is that we can use key escrow there > >> as a mechanism to re-encrypt automatically system relevant keys when a > >> new server is joined to the realm. > > So we agree that Vault offers what we want so we should use it, right? > > > > I think we should determine if we can use Vault for K/M. It would be another > > reason why we should use Vault instead of a custom solution. > > > > Do we really want to use the heavy machinery Vault for DNSSEC keys? I would > personally like to avoid it and use something more lightweight. > > Vault seems to me as a too heavy requirement for FreeIPA server with DNS. It > needs Tomcat and all the Java machinery, special installation, replication > scheme, difficult debugging etc. In my mind, Vault is a specialized heavy > component that solves specific problems that not every admin may want and thus > may cause a lot of grief to such admins who just want CA-less FreeIPA and > DNS(SEC).
Well keep in mind that you do not need a vault instance on every DNS server, just like a CA a few servers would be sufficient. DNS key rotation happens relatively 'rarely' so the dependency is not a huge problem in terms of performance or management. There is the problem of the heavyweight java-based infrastructure, but we already have that dependency for the CA part, so it's not like we are adding anything new. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list Freeipa-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel