Skip to content
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

[DOC] - Update docs about certificates #421

Closed
1 task done
viniciusdc opened this issue Mar 25, 2024 · 5 comments
Closed
1 task done

[DOC] - Update docs about certificates #421

viniciusdc opened this issue Mar 25, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@viniciusdc
Copy link
Contributor

Preliminary Checks

Summary

Steps to Resolve this Issue

  1. Update docs

...

@viniciusdc
Copy link
Contributor Author

viniciusdc commented May 29, 2024

Just a bit more of context to this:

The current documentation needs updates to address changes in how certificates are managed during local deployments, considering the changes made by now having persistency within the generated self-signed certs, especially in the context of using Let's Encrypt with Traefik Ingress and how /etc/hosts interacts with all this. Recent experiences suggest revising guidelines to avoid confusion and helpful information when encountering issues.

Details & Context

  1. /etc/hosts and Certificate Generation
    Previously, mapping a DNS name in the /etc/hosts to MetalLB's external IP was sufficient for Let's Encrypt (using the production ACME server) to generate a valid certificate.

    • This was mainly because, in the Qhub's era, when developers attempted to deploy it locally, we pinned the range for the external LB IP to always point to 192.168.49.100, which, by that time, we used to have a Cloudflare DNS pointing to it. Its first appearance could be tracked down roughly to here. And since then this mostly was untouched. This has been forgotten, but the docs are still an inverse reflection of that time.
  2. Persistent Volume Claims and Certificate Renewal:

  • There have been instances where, despite redeploying a cluster, Traefik continued to utilize an outdated cert.json file from a persistent volume (PV) instead of generating a new certificate. If such a situation occurs, this could get a note section in the Cers docs as a workaround for the user to delete the file in the volume mount manually. This is rare because we don't expect users to change the domain name often.

In conclusion:

To avoid confusion, remove outdated references to /etc/hosts setup in the context of Let's Encrypt certifications.
If users are looking for why their domain is interested in their browsers when using LetsEncrypt, they should be told that their SSL certs need to be recognized and pointed to the DNS docs.

  • For users who only want to test/dev the deployment and would like to avoid this DNS route, we should direct them to use custom certs instead and opt for openssl or certgen to help in this endeavor

@aktech
Copy link
Member

aktech commented May 30, 2024

People can general certs for local deployment too with DNS challenge, see this comment: nebari-dev/nebari#1405 (comment)

I would be nice to add docs for that to patch it for local deployment and eventually implement an option to generate certs via dns challenge.

@aktech
Copy link
Member

aktech commented May 30, 2024

Note regarding certs for local deployment

I saw an issue with terminal on the local deployment, it doesn't loads. (It might just be on my local deployment) I see the terminal websocket connection to terminal endpoint fails.

https://github.com/nebari-dev/nebari-docs/assets/5647941/52049e0e-78d6-4270-9a02-2cb486a7eafc
Screenshot 2024-05-29 at 4 59 47 pm

It worked when nebari is running with valid certs (I generated it via DNS challenge as mentioned above)

@kcpevey
Copy link
Contributor

kcpevey commented Jun 7, 2024

@aktech / @viniciusdc does #470 sufficiently cover this such that this can be closed now?

@viniciusdc
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @kcpevey, the above mentioned PR was enough for this issue. I will be closing it now, the above comments from @aktech was due to some experimental changes we are implementing on nebari that will be interesting to document later on (I just asked him to add some notes here so that we didn't forget) -- I will create a new issue for that :)

@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from TODO 📬 to Done 💪🏾 in 🪴 Nebari Project Management Jun 18, 2024
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from Todo 📬 to Done 💪🏾 in 📖 - Documentation Jun 18, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Done 💪🏾
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants