[Freeipa-devel] DNSSEC design page

[Jan Cholasta]

On 25.2.2014 16:42, Rob Crittenden wrote:
> Jan Cholasta wrote:
>> On 25.2.2014 16:11, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 15:59 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
>>>> On 25.2.2014 15:11, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 14:54 +0100, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
>>>>>>> Any reason why we should follow in detail what softshm does ?
>>>>>> because I did't know what is really needed. If you want to have a
>>>>>> pkcs11
>>>>>> module, which stores data in ldap, I though it should have all the
>>>>>> attributes potentially needed.
>>>>>> Jan said taht OpenDNSSEC uses CKA_VERIFY, CKA_ENCRYPT, CKA_WRAP,
>>>>>> CKA_SIGN, CKA_DECRYPT, CKA_UNWRAP, CKA_SENSITIVE, CKA_PRIVATE,
>>>>>> CKA_EXTRACTABLE,
>>>>>> so there is at least one requirement for fine grained attributes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does OpenDNSSEC store them as separate entities and need access to
>>>>> them
>>>>> independently ?
>>>> AFAIK OpenDNSSEC uses purely PKCS#11 for key manipulation so LDAP
>>>> schema
>>>> doesn't matter as long as our PKCS#11 module can derive all values
>>>> defined by
>>>> standard.
>>>>
>>>> Honza, you did investigate OpenDNSSEC integration, please add some
>>>> details if
>>>> you can.
>>>>
>>>>> Or is this internal use that can be satisfied by unpacking a blob in
>>>>> OpenDNSSEC ?
>>>>>
>>>>> What does bind9 uses ? Petr, can you provide example key files ?
>>>>
>>>> Private+public keys stored in files:
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2014-February/msg00463.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Private keys stored in HSM and public keys in files:
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2014-February/msg00333.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (I.e. some values in .private file are replaced by PKCS#11 label.)
>>>
>>> Ok it seem clear to me we do not need to spell out a lot of values when
>>> using pkcs#11 as bind doesn't need them in the key files. So I assume it
>>> can query the pkcs#11 module to find what it needs.
>>>
>>> I would use these key files as a sort of guide to understand what we
>>> need in LDAP. I would try to put in a single blob as much as we can that
>>> we do not explicitly need by a client querying LDAP directly.
>>>
>>> I think in order to nail down exactly what we need, at this point, we
>>> require some example use cases and queries the various clients would
>>> perform with spelled out what they are looking for to identify or
>>> manipulate keys.
>>>
>>> Simo.
>>>
>>
>> See "How applications interact with PKCS#11" at
>> <http://www.freeipa.org/page/V3/PKCS11_in_LDAP>. Tl;dr: applications
>> don't search for keys by key data, but by metadata, so like I said in
>> the other thread, key data can be in a single blob, but metadata should
>> be in separate attributes.
>>
>
> Splitting hairs, I think that one can search based on the cert DER which
> I guess represents the public key. You mean search by private key?

Public keys in PKCS#11 are represented by a set of attributes (e.g. 
CKA_MODULUS, CKA_MODULUS_BITS and CKA_PUBLIC_EXPONENT for RSA public 
keys), I meant search by values of some of them.

>
> How do you plan to generate the CKA_ID? IIRC it needs to be unique per
> token and since this will be rather dynamically available. I think it's
> just a set of bytes so maybe a UUID is adequate.

That's a possibility. OpenDNSSEC puts 16 random bytes in CKA_ID.

>
> I think you're on the right path defining these as discrete attributes.
> IMHO it will be worth submitting this as an RFC once the schema design
> is complete. So I wonder if the 'ipa' string should be dropped from the
> proposed schema. I guess that would also require specifying the other
> CKA values for other key types (e.g. DSA and DH).
>
> In the schema ipaPkcs11prim1 is missing an 'e' I think and the comment
> should be CKA_PRIME_1.
>
> rob


-- 
Jan Cholasta