On 06/28/2016 02:05 PM, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:49:26PM +0200, Martin Kosek wrote:
>> 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
>>>>>> 'ipa.demo1.freeipa.org'
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> configuration).
>>>>> 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:
>>>> 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 
>>>> feature
>>>> 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?
> I do not think it is so important... the issuer name appears on the
> certificate too, and all issuers appear in the cert chain.  Unless
> there is some particular software or a customer that expects/needs a
> particular relationship between Issuer DN and Subject DN... but I do
> not know of a such a case.
> I agree it would possibly be useful to have variables for info in
> the Issuer DN, that can be referenced in the Subject DN pattern.
> It probably won't fit into v4.4 timeframe, though.

Right. I would file that ticket when someone really requests it. Looks like no
change is needed in this case, I thus consider this question successfully 


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

Reply via email to