Hi Fraser,

I think the general idea looks good. If tested to work, I actually think you should have it replace the current caServerCert.cfg and make it the default server cert profile for Dogtag. So I'd suggest you name things more generically.

Just for your reference, there is an implementation that injects SAN(s) into server certs at time of Dogtag instance creation. It also allows one to put multiple SANs in one ssl server cert:
again, it's only limited to pkispawn option so it serves a different purpose.


On 03/10/2016 05:06 PM, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 07:33:52AM +0100, Jan Cholasta wrote:

On 29.2.2016 07:59, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
Hi all (especially those interested in certificates),

Please provide early review of my design for RFC 2818 compliance
which will address the following tickets:

- #4970 Server certificate profile should always include a Subject Alternate 
name for the host
- #5706 [RFE] Support SAN-only certificates


The design is a WIP and there is no code for it yet.  Looking for
feedback and (hopefully) validation of the approach before
committing cycles to implementing new profile components in Dogtag.
1) Do wildcard certificates need special handling? There is no mention of
them in the design doc.

No special handling of wildcard certs is needed but I've added some
commentary to the design page.

2) Should we accept invalid CSR where CN length is greater than 64? I
wouldn't be surprised if these existed in the wild.

Good question.  I agree such CSRs probably exist.  There are various
ways to handle them:

a) Reject request (with useful message; instruction to issue
    SAN-only request instead)

b) Issue non-compliant cert with overlong CN.  It will be helpful to
    find out how important clients handle such certs.

c) Accept the CSR but "promote" the overlong CN from CSR into a SAN
    dnsName, and issue a SAN-only cert.  Some clients may not handle
    such certs very well.

Personally I like (c), because the user intent is clear but we still
issue a valid cert, however, I expect there are clients out there
(particularly in "enterprise" environments?) that will not handle it

I've copied pki-devel@ to solicit additional insights here :)

3) Sometimes it is not clear which parts belong to Dogtag and which to IPA
itself. For example the upgrade section - I assume Dogtag should update
registry.cfg and IPA caIPAserviceCert profile, but it is not clearly stated

Thanks, I've added clarifying remarks.  In brief: yes Dogtag should
update registry.cfg, but FreeIPA should update the profile.

Thank you for your feedback, Jan.

Pki-devel mailing list

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

Reply via email to