On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 16:29 +0100, Martin Kosek wrote:
> On 03/05/2014 03:04 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > 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.
> Yeah, but the plan is not force people to have the heavy weight Java
> infrastructure on each server so that they are able to create more lightweight
> servers only with components they choose:
Yes, but the Vault does not need to be installed on each server, just on
a couple of them like for the CA. In particular it doesn't need to be
installed on the same servers that offer the DNS service.
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
Freeipa-devel mailing list