On 06/28/2016 12:49 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> On 28.6.2016 12:33, Martin Kosek wrote:
>> On 06/28/2016 12:23 PM, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:00:17AM +0200, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>> Hi Fraser,
>>>> I was testing FreeIPA Sub-CA feature and setup a Sub-CA:
>>>> CN=Certificate Authority,O=VPN,O=DEMO1.FREEIPA.ORG
>>>> Then I set up ACL and generated a certificate request by:
>>>> $ certutil -R -d . -a -g 2048 -s
>>>> 'CN=ipa.demo1.freeipa.org,O=VPN,O=DEMO1.FREEIPA.ORG' -8
>>>> The resulting certificate is attached. What I pondering about is
>>>> Issuer: O=DEMO1.FREEIPA.ORG, O=VPN, CN=Certificate Authority
>>>> Subject: O=DEMO1.FREEIPA.ORG, CN=ipa.demo1.freeipa.org
>>>> Shouldn't the subject have O=VPN in it also?
>>> Hi Martin,
>>> (Cc freeipa-devel@ ; this info may be of general interest)
>>> The subject is determined by the certificate profile. In the case
>>> of caIPAserviceCert, the pattern is:
>>> CN=$$request.req_subject_name.cn$$, $SUBJECT_DN_O
>>> The CN comes from the CSR, and the Organisation is the IPA
>>> certificate subject base (as a literal string in the profile
>>> There are no substitution variables available to say "use such and
>>> such from the issuer DN". If the default pattern is not suitable,
>>> you can define a profile with the subject DN pattern having exactly
>>> the O=... parts of DN you want (and/or other attributes), then
>>> associate the profile with the CA through CA ACLs. (This approach
>>> is not elegant and does not scale well to many CAs).
>>> Hope that my explanation is helpful.
>> The explanation is helpful, I just do not I like the answer :-) What do you
>> think would make most sense for Sub-CA users?
>> I would like to see pattern like "$$issuer.suffix$$" where the Dogtag would
>> fill the non-CN part of issuer DN, i.e. in this case:
>> O=DEMO1.FREEIPA.ORG, O=VPN
>> which would make this profile flexible and usable in any Sub-CA.
>> Should I file a ticket? Can you scope if it fits in some FreeIPA 4.4.x and
>> respective Dogtag release? I am just afraid that given we release this
>> in 4.4, people would have to very creative and duplicate lot of certificate
>> profiles for different sub-CAs just to workaround the Subject patter
>> limitation, as you mentioned.
> What is the use case?
This is what I am trying to find out.
> The certificate is equally good with both the current and
> your suggested issuer name. There is no relation between issuer name and
> subject name in general, and AFAIK the current recommendation is to omit
> subject name for end-entity certificate entirely and instead rely on SAN, so
> why should we bother?
I am aware of the SAN related change, regarding hostnames. So this proposal
would apparently not add that much value in this case. What about user
certificates (S/MIME certs, Smart Card certs), are there cases where admin
would need to get issuer to subject name?
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code