[Freeipa-devel] DNSSEC design page

[Jan Cholasta]

On 25.2.2014 17:36, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
>
> On 02/25/2014 05:12 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 16:18 +0100, 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.
>> Ah sorry, I hadn't looked at that one yet.
>> It helps quite a bit.
>>
>> So are the class, key_type, id, label, token, 'sign' the only values we
>> should really care to split off ?

They are all metadata related to PKCS#11 operation. I don't think you 
can easily encode them in PKCS#8 or certificate blob, so they actually 
need to be split off. You can find the full list of them in the PKCS#11 
spec (link below).

>>
>> Can you describe what are these values ?
>> What is class ? Why is it important, and how does it differ from
>> key_type ?
>> What is the token ? What is 'sign' ?
>>
>> Feel free to give references to specific documents to read up about
>> these attributes.
> I'm a newcomer to this area and am orienting myself at this doc:
> ftp://ftp.rsasecurity.com/pub/pkcs/pkcs-11/v2-30/pkcs-11v2-30b-d6.pdf
> and looking into opendnssec andsofthsm code.

I use mainly 
<ftp://ftp.rsasecurity.com/pub/pkcs/pkcs-11/v2-20/pkcs-11v2-20.pdf>, as 
2.30 is a draft ATM.

>
> It explains CKA_SIGN as:
> "TheCKA_SIGN attribute of the signature key, whic h indicates whether
> the key supports signatures with appendix, must be CK_TRUE."
> I cannot tell if this will be needed, just can make up an attribute and
> allow it in an objectclass :-)

OpenDNSSEC puts it in public key objects it generates, so it's needed at 
least for the sake of it.

Actually, I think we should support all of the metadata attributes, so 
that our PKCS#11 module is reasonably generic and not tailored to needs 
of a specific consumer.

>
> But I think Jan's doc is a good start where he explains which attributes
> will be used by specific modules eg for searches.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Simo.
>>
>


-- 
Jan Cholasta