On 7.4.2016 16:17, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 7.4.2016 15:20, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:29:00PM +0200, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 7.4.2016 12:13, Christian Heimes wrote:
On 2016-04-07 11:09, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 7.4.2016 08:43, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
Hi team,

I updated the Sub-CAs design page with more detail for the key
replication[1].  This part of the design is nearly complete (a large
patchset is in review over at pki-devel@) but there are various
options about how to authenticate to Custodia.

[1] http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Sub-CAs#Key_replication

In brief, the options are:

1) authenticate as host principal; install binary setuid
    root:pkiuser to read host keytab and custodia keys.

Huh, I really do not like this. Host keytab on IPA master is one of the most
sensitive keys we have.

Maybe gssproxy can be used somehow, but I think it would be better to use
separate key.

2) authenticate as host principal; copy host keytab and custodia
    keys to location readable by pkiuser.

No, really, do not copy host keytab anywhere.

3) create new principal for pkiuser to use, along with custodia keys
    and keytab in location readable by pkiuser.

I prefer option (1) for reasons outlined in the design page.  The
design page goes into quite a bit more detail so please review the
section linked above and get back to me with your thoughts.

The only downside of (3) using new keys is:
... This approach requires the creation of new principals, and Kerberos
keytabs and Custodia keys for those principals, as part of the
installation/upgrade process.

Compared with additional SUID binary this seems as safer and easier way to go.
FreeIPA installers already create quite a lot of principals and keytabs so
this is well understood task.

I would do (3).

+1 for (3)

A SUID binary feels like a dangerous hack.


OK, (3) it is.  Thanks all for your input.

Now for next question: what should service principal name be?  I
think `dogtag/example....@example.com' but am open to other
suggestions, e.g. `pki/...'.

Do you plan to attempt to standardize this name in future? I do not expect that.

Considering private nature of it, it should be as specific as possible to
avoid any potential conflicts with future standards. "dogtag-key-replication"
sounds like a good candidate.

IMO it shouldn't be *that* specific, considering we want to switch Dogtag from SSL to GSSAPI authentication to DS, which will probably use the same principal name. I think "ipa-pki/..." or "dogtag/..." should be fine.

Before you set the name in stone make sure it does not conflict with anything
listed on

These names have potential to be used by someone else.

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