Dne 16.6.2015 v 01:02 Endi Sukma Dewata napsal(a):
On 6/15/2015 2:22 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
I think it would be better to use a new attribute type which inherits
from ipaPublicKey (ipaVaultPublicKey?) rather than ipaPublicKey directly
for assymetric vault public keys, so that assymetric public key and
escrow public key are on the same level and you can still use
ipaPublicKey to refer to either one:


     ( 2.16.840.1.113730. NAME 'ipaVaultPublicKey' DESC
'Assymetric vault public key as DER-encoded SubjectPublicKeyInfo (RFC
5280)' SUP ipaPublicKey EQUALITY octetStringMatch SYNTAX X-ORIGIN 'IPA v4.2' )
     ( 2.16.840.1.113730. NAME 'ipaEscrowPublicKey' DESC 'IPA
escrow public key as DER-encoded SubjectPublicKeyInfo (RFC 5280)' SUP
ipaPublicKey EQUALITY octetStringMatch SYNTAX X-ORIGIN 'IPA v4.2' )

OK. To be consistent the parameters need to be renamed too:
--vault-public-key and --vault-public-key-file.

It doesn't need to, there is no requirement for CLI names to always match attribute names. (Also I don't insist on the name "ipaVaultPublicKey", feel free to change it if you want.)

1. The vault_add was split into a client-side vault_add and server-side
vault_add_internal since the parameters are different (i.e. public
key file and
future escrow-related params). Since vault_add inherits from Local all
non-primary-key attributes have to be added explicitly.

The split is not really necessary, since the only difference is the
public_key_file option, which exists only because of the lack of proper
file support in the framework. This is a different situation from
vault_{archive,retrieve}, which has two different sets of options on
client and server side. Escrow adds only ipaescrowpublickey and
escrow_public_key_file, right? If yes, we can safely keep the command in
a single piece.

We know the vault-add will have at least two client-only parameters:
vault_public_key_file and escrow_public_key_file. Keeping these
parameters on the server API would be wrong and confusing. If the API is
called on the server side with vault_public_key_file the operation will
fail. In the previous discussion you considered this as broken API:

Server API is used not only by the server itself, but also by installers
for example. Anyway the point is that there *can't* be a broken API like
this, you should at least raise an error if the command is called from
server API, although actually separating it into client and server parts
would be preferable.

You are comparing apples and oranges:

a) When the non-split vault_{archive,retrieve} was called from a server API with client-only options, it crashed. This is the broken API I was talking about.

b) The non-split vault_{archive,retrieve} had server-only options, which were also accepted on client, but setting them had no effect.

c) The CLI options to read param values from files should be generated by the framework without having to specify dummy params. Once this is implemented, the dummy params will go away. However, this will still leave some client-only options in vault_{archive,retrieve}.

None of the above applies to vault_add - it does not have any server-only options and the only client-only options it has are the dummy options for file input, which are ignored on the server.

Also, originally the vault was designed like this: when you create a
symmetric vault you're supposed to specify the password as well, similar
to adding a public key when creating an asymmetric vault. When you
archive, you're supposed to enter the same password for verification,
not a new password. So it would look like this:

$ ipa vault-add test --type symmetric
New password: ********
Verify password: ********

$ ipa vault-archive test --in secret1.txt
Password: ******** (same password)

$ ipa vault-archive test --in secret2.txt
Password: ******** (same password)

In the original design the vault-add would also archive a blank data,
which later could be used to verify the password during vault-archive by
decrypting the existing data first. There's also a plan to add a
mechanism to change the password after the ACL patch.

In the current design the vault-add doesn't archive anything, so during
vault-archive it cannot verify the password because there is nothing to
decrypt. In other words you can specify different passwords on each
archival, regardless of previous archivals:

$ ipa vault-add test --type symmetric

$ ipa vault-archive test --in secret1.txt
New password: ********
Verify password: ********

$ ipa vault-archive test --in secret2.txt
New password: ********
Verify password: ********

So basically here are the options:

1. Specify the crypto parameters once during vault creation, then
reuse/verify the parameters on each archival & retrieval. You can change
the parameters only with a special command.

2. Don't specify the crypto parameters during vault creation, but
specify new parameters on each archival. For retrieval you'd have to
use/verify the parameters specified in the last archival.

I think the first one makes more sense and is easier to use. That also
means the vault-add will have additional client-only parameters such as
--password and --password-file.

How come --password is client-side? When setting password for a user, the password is sent to the server. If it's OK for users, why is it not OK for vaults?

Does the password need to be set in vault_add? Why not have a separate command for setting the password, like what we have for users?

2. Since the vault_archive_internal inherits from Update, it accepts
all non
primary-key attributes automatically. This is incorrect since we
don't want to
update these parameters during archival. Can this behavior be

Inherit from PKQuery instead (don't forget to add "has_output =

Previously you didn't want to use LDAPQuery because of semantics
reasons. Is PKQuery fine semantically?

It's not. Currently there is a set of commands which operate on the LDAP part of vault and another set of commands which operate on the KRA part of vault and we don't want the commands in one set to see attributes related to the other part of vault. If you insist on keeping both parts in a single object, you have to resort to hackery like using PKQuery, hence my suggestion to split the data part off to a separate object to avoid this.

Why not use LDAPQuery since vault
is an LDAPObject?

Because you are retrieving data from KRA, not from LDAP.

And to be consistent should vault_retrieve_internal
inherit from the same class?

It could, but it's not necessary.

BTW the correct solution would be to have a separate object and commands
for vault data (e.g. vaultdata object, vault_archive -> vaultdata_mod,
vault_retrieve -> vauldata_show), then we wouldn't have to deal with
mixing vault attributes with vault data and could use proper crud base

Jan Cholasta

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

Reply via email to