[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] 123 Use http instead of https for OCSP and CRL URLs in IPA certificate profile

[Martin Kosek]

On 04/10/2013 01:52 AM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> On 04/09/2013 12:11 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 11:18 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>>> On 04/09/2013 10:19 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 16:02 +0200, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>> On 04/08/2013 05:09 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/08/2013 03:47 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/08/2013 08:42 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/08/2013 10:48 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8.4.2013 10:47, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> this patch fixes <https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3552>.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Honza
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Re-sending with correct subject.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I tested the change both for upgrades and for fresh installs and it worked fine
>>>>>>>> both cases, even when testing with Firefox enforcing mode.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So far, as the biggest issue in current process I see NSS not being able to
>>>>>>>> fallback to other defined OCSP responder (I tested with Firefox 20). This way,
>>>>>>>> Firefox will fail validating the FreeIPA site when the first tested OCSP
>>>>>>>> responder is not available (e.g. the original IPA CA signing the http cert, or
>>>>>>>> an `ipa-ca.$domain` host that is currently not up).
>>>>>>> Have we filed a ticket with FF?
>>>>>> AFAIU, this is rather NSS issue, that Firefox issue. There is a bug open for NSS:
>>>>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=797815
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob seems to have more context about this bug background.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>> We may want to wait with pushing this patch until we get some response in the
>>>>> NSS Bugzilla above. If our request is rejected, we may be forced to use just a
>>>>> single CRL/OCSP (which would be probably the general one) and thus supersede
>>>>> patch 123.
>>>> Well it will have to depend on when you create certs.
>>>> The first IPA server own cert should probably point at the ipa server
>>>> name. Then we should warn in bold letters that the user should create
>>>> such and such a DNS name if they did not let IPA handle DNS.
>>>>
>>>> If we can handle DNS then any other use can refer to the common name
>>>> which can be an A name with multiple entries (each IPA CA server should
>>>> be listed there by default and the record should be changed at ca
>>>> replicas install/decommission time, however we should allow admins to
>>>> add/remove names as well manually in case they want to add proxies otr
>>>> conceal some of the CA servers.
>>>>
>>>> We may also want to change the RA client code to use that record to
>>>> fetch certs.
>>>>
>>>> Simo.
>>>>
>>> I see a lot of RFEs in this comment.
>>> Are we going to file them?
>> We'll see how NSS is going to respond to the ticket, and then adjust
>> accordingly.
>>
>> Simo.
>>
>>
> Well... time to adjust... accordingly ;-)
> 

Oh yes, see "adjusted" tickets
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3552
and
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3547
with a resolution how to handle the OCSP/CRL URIs.

This supersedes the original Jan's patch 123.
Martin