On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:52:25AM +0200, Martin Kosek wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 11:17 AM, Martin Basti wrote:
> > On 28/05/15 10:46, Martin Kosek wrote:
> >> On 05/27/2015 06:12 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
> >>> On 27/05/15 15:53, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> >>>> This patch adds supports for multiple user / host certificates.  No
> >>>> schema change is needed ('usercertificate' attribute is already
> >>>> multi-value).  The revoke-previous-cert behaviour of host-mod and
> >>>> user-mod has been removed but revocation behaviour of -del and
> >>>> -disable is preserved.
> >>>>
> >>>> The latest profiles/caacl patchset (0001..0013 v5) depends on this
> >>>> patch for correct cert-request behaviour.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is one design question (or maybe more, let me know): the
> >>>> `--out=FILENAME' option to {host,service} show saves ONE certificate
> >>>> to the named file.  I propose to either:
> >>>>
> >>>> a) write all certs, suffixing suggested filename with either a
> >>>>      sequential numerical index, e.g. "cert.pem" becomes
> >>>>      "cert.pem.1", "cert.pem.2", and so on; or
> >>>>
> >>>> b) as above, but suffix with serial number and, if there are
> >>>>      different issues, some issuer-identifying information.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let me know your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Fraser
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Is there a possible way how to store certificates into one file?
> >>> I read about possibilities to have multiple certs in one .pem file, but 
> >>> I'm not
> >>> cert guru :)
> >>>
> >>> I personally vote for serial number in case there are multiple 
> >>> certificates, if
> >>> ^ is no possible.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1)
> >>> +            if len(certs) > 0:
> >>>
> >>> please use only,
> >>> if certs:
> >>>
> >>> 2)
> >>> You need to re-generate API/ACI.txt in this patch
> >>>
> >>> 3)
> >>> syntax error:
> >>> +        for dercert in certs_der
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 4)
> >>> command
> >>> ipa user-mod ca_user --certificate=<ceritifcate>
> >>>
> >>> removes the current certificate from the LDAP, by design.
> >>> Should be the old certificate(s) revoked? You removed that part in the 
> >>> code.
> >> Good question. I think the suggestion was to have a global switch in IPA 
> >> global
> >> config that would configure the policy - whether the certificates removed 
> >> by
> >> this command or by host-del or host-disable are revoked or if they are just
> >> removed (my motivation is to avoid behavior regression in case somebody
> >> depended on this behavior).
> > I would prefer to keep the current behavior: revoke the certificate if it 
> > was
> > replaced or removed, instead of adding an extra configuration option.
> > This behavior is not regression.
> 
> It is not. However, it is not an ideal behavior also. In FreeIPA 4.2, we are
> now adding support of certificate profiles, multiple certificates and even
> certificates for user.
> 
> With that change, there may be much more certificates in play than now. If we
> keep revoking all such certificates, it may cause rapid growth of CRLs. This 
> is
> something I am trying to avoid with this proposal and default to not revoking
> certificates automatically (which mostly only makes sense if there is a risk
> that the key is compromised), but have some option to keep the old behavior.
> 
> Does this make sense?
>
It does make senes.

In regards to *this* patch, I will make -mod behave the same as -del
and -disable; i.e. the current behaviour i.e. revoke whenever we
"forget" a certificate.

Any config knobs, command options, etc to govern whether to revoke
shall be added in a subsequent patch.

Cheers,
Fraser

-- 
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to