-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Cleanup deprecations and fix client/server usage #49
Open
ehelms
wants to merge
4
commits into
Katello:master
Choose a base branch
from
ehelms:cleanup-deprecations
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+19
−19
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure if this is correct. Are you sure we're not mixing them? Like the Smart Proxy using the same certs for both client and serer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you are asking "does Katello use them in a mixed usage way" the answer is no. We generate server and client certificates and strictly use them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Question is: should we use them in a mixed way? Does it hurt to have this here? Do we even check on the usage?
I'd feel more comfortable merging this just the deprecation removal for now (because that's obviously a good thing) and discuss the key usage separate (because I don't know how to think about it yet).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's a tough question. My reading has led me to conclude this comes down to how strict we want to be. Being strict about these usages is an implementation of the principal of least privilege. Do we want our client certificates to be able to be used for servers and vice versa, do we want our server certificates to be able to be used as client certificates?
If we said yes - then we would only need to generate one set of certificates per hostname and use it for Apache, foreman-proxy, foreman client certs, etc.
If we said no, then we could roughly stay with the structure we have now and fix this inconsistency as I have noted it here.
You can see, that we even expect this in
puppet-certs
: https://github.com/theforeman/puppet-certs/blob/master/manifests/foreman.pp#L29We test for it -- https://github.com/theforeman/puppet-certs/blob/master/spec/acceptance/apache_spec.rb#L36
I ran a pipeline, implementing this and all bats tests passed so our deployment model even expects it.
I think as I understand it, you can also go one step further and mark extensions as critical in which the CA certificate will enforce the purpose. In some of my testing, even without the critical I was able to see Apache enforcing the purpose - that is, trying to use a
serverAuth
only certificate to perform a client action was rejected.Here is an example of testing that:
Where each of these has a single purpose as outlined in this PR.