[Freeipa-users] Certificate profiles and CA ACLs for service principals

[earsdown]

Hi Fraser, Martin and Alexander,

Thanks for looking into this! For what it's worth, I think for this 
particular use case, I'm leaning more towards Alexander when he said:

> I don't think you need to group services this way. For managing
> services, and this means being able to issue certificates/keytabs for
> them, we have hosts. By default a host that a service belongs to is
> capable to modify userCertificate attribute of the service already, so 
> I
> would expect it to be able to issue certificates with subject principal
> corresponding to the service.

> If CAACL would follow the same logic by allowing hosts that manage
> services to issue certificates with subject principals corresponding to
> these services, that should be enough because, after all, these host
> objects already have write permissions and can upload whatever
> certificates they like to the service objects.
> --
> / Alexander Bokovoy

Personally, I was very surprised when I discovered that, even though a 
host principal may manage a service principal, it is currently unable to 
request a certificate for that service principal if the service 
principal doesn't have specific access to the certificate profile, even 
though the host principal may have access to the same certificate 
profile. In my mind the CA ACL should be evaluated against the identity 
of the requestor, not the issuee. As long as the requestor is allowed to 
request on behalf of the issuee (achieved via the managedby attribute), 
then it should work. Now, if I used the credentials of the service 
principal directly (say, with a service keytab) to make the request 
(supposing the service principal wasn't listed in the CA ACL), then 
denying the request would be the expected behaviour (imo of course).

Okay, so even though Alexander's suggestion might be more intuitive, 
implementing service groups might be more feasible from a technical 
standpoint, and I'm fairly sure this use case would also be solved by 
implementing service groups. But, it would be painful without automember 
regexp rules, so please don't forget this :D

Cheers!

On 2016-03-22 20:50, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 09:59:58AM +0100, Martin Kosek wrote:
>> On 03/22/2016 05:55 AM, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 08:12:44PM +1100, earsdown wrote:
>> ...
>> > To my fellow FreeIPA developers: are service groups a sensible RFE?
>> > Is there a reason why they have not been implemented?
>> 
>> It *is* sensible RFE and it was actually already filed!
>> 
>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5277
>> 
>> Please feel free to add yourself to CC to receive updates or even help 
>> us with
>> implementation.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Martin
>> 
> Good to know... I've added myself to Cc and also filed an RFE for
> enhancing CA ACLs with service groups once #5277 is implemented:
> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5753
> 
> Cheers,
> Fraser