On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:41:37AM +0200, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> On 22.7.2016 07:18, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> > While I was poking around SAN-processing code, I decided to
> > implement a small enhancement: allowing the subject principal's DN
> > to appear in SAN.
> > https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/6112
> > Patch depends on my other patches 0090, 0092, 0093, 0094.
> I don't think this is how DN SANs are supposed to be handled. For example,
> see this bit about DN name constraints in RFC 5280 section 188.8.131.52:
> Restrictions of the form directoryName MUST be applied to the subject
> field in the certificate (when the certificate includes a non-empty
> subject field) and to any names of type directoryName in the
> subjectAltName extension.
> It would appear to me that DN SANs only provide additional values to the
> subject name of the certificate and thus should be treated the same way as
> the subject name.
> We don't impose any restrictions on subject names with regard to DN of the
> subject LDAP entry, so I think we should not do it for DN SANs as well. Or,
> alternatively, we should do it for both.
I disagree. Supporting an altname containing the LDAP DN is a valid
use case. There is no need to apply the same rules to Subject DN
and Directory Name altname (otherwise, why would the Directory Name
altname type even exist?). There are other possible values but this
one is trivial to validate so why not?
As for the RFC excerpt, this is about the Name Constraints
extension. In the unlikely case that a superior certificate has a
Name Constraints extension that applies to DNs, the way we construct
the Subject DN is probably the bigger problem ;)
Take the feature or leave it (after all, noone has asked for it yet)
but IMO the usage is valid.
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code