[Pki-devel] [PATCH] 0026-5, 0044-3 Lightweight sub-CAs

Wed Aug 26 06:09:22 UTC 2015

Some more thoughts.

First off, there are things that should be included with the CAData for
each subsystem.

1. CA signing cert (or more likely a reference to the ca cert)
2. pkcs7 chain (again this is something that could/should likely be a
reference)
3. status - ie. enabled/disabled.
4. Description -- user defined description.

For the motivation for (30 status, we do need to consider what we want
do when someone wants to delete or decommission a subCA.  If we want to
keep the subCA record -- and we almost certainly need to  -- we should
probably add some kind of field to enable/disable.

Second, we definitely need code to be able to issue a cert using the
subcas from the REST interface.  This will allow us to actually test
that the subCA is working.

Third, if we do stick with the current REST API, I think we should
consider using something like:

POST /subcas/ca1/ca2  {"id": "ca3"} to generate a subca /ca1/ca2/ca3

Fourth, though, we need to consider carefully whether or not it makes
sense to identify a subca through 
1) an identifier that contains slashes
2) an identifier that is defined by the user instead of the server.  We
have currently no controls as to what names are chosen, and no clear
rationale for what should be chosen.

Much as I dislike uuids, there is a good reasons openstack uses them
everywhere.

We can discuss over IRC, but I can see many issues here.

Ade

On Tue, 2015-08-25 at 14:40 -0400, Ade Lee wrote:
> Some initial comments and questions. Will have more after playing 
> with
> it and testing. Looks pretty good so far.
> 
> 1. what is 
> org.apache.tomcat.util.buf.UDecoder.ALLOW_ENCODED_SLASH=true
> and why is it needed?
> 
> 2. In CAService.java: issueX509Cert() - if ca is null, this throws an
> ECAException - which, if I understand the code correctly, ends up 
> being
> some kind of BaseException.  So, if someone requests a cert and
> provides a bogus caref, it will be reported as a server error instead
> of a installation error?
> 
> 
> 3. CertificateAuthority.java
> -- subCAHier --> rename to subCAHierarchy.
> 
> -- In the constructor, it would be useful to have example inputs in 
> the
> method documentation so that we can see what data is expected to be 
> in
> each of the fields.  Its hard to review/understand/maintain 
> otherwise.
> 
> -- you have extracted initCetDatabase() and initCRLDB(), also extract
> the replica repo initialization code into initReplicaRepo() or 
> similar.
> 
> -- loadSubCAs - could use some description in method comments about 
> the
> structure we expect to construct here.  An example config would help
> understanding.
> 
> -- createSubCA 
>    -- returns ECAException() in many different cases ie.
>    if the CA exists, if the parent does not exist, if there is an 
>    error in CA creation.  This makes it difficult to separate out the 
>    things that are likely client request issues vs. server issues.  
>    More likely, we want different exceptions that can be caught by 
> the 
>    caller and handled appropriately.
>    -- what about uniqueness checks for the issuer DN?
> 
> 
> 4. SubCAResource.java 
> -- path should be subcas ? not subca ..
> -- acls needed of course
> 
> 
> 5. CAEnrollProfile.java 
> --> could not reach CA -- that ends up being a ProfileException -- 
>     which maps to a server error?  Is this a case where we need a
>     bad request exception instead?
> 
> 6. subca.schema 
> -- why is it specified in a separate file? (and also in schema.ldif)
> -- the subca is uniquely defined by only one MAY attribute for 
>    nickname (which is in printable string format)?  Is that 
> sufficient
>    and should that be a required attribute?  Do you need to store the
>    issuerDN for uniqueness checks? 
> 
> 7.  SubCAService.java
>  -- lets remove the commented out audit messages and functions
>  -- createSubCA() 
>      -- should be some checks here on the data -- rather than passing 
>         through to the lower level. Bad data should return 
>         BadRequestException, including for cases where we have 
>         existing issuerDN or caRef.
> 
> 8.  SubCACreateCLI -- this code would be confusing:
> 
>  if (cmdArgs.length < positionalArgNames.length) {
>             System.err.println("Error: No "
>                     + positionalArgNames[cmdArgs.length]
>                     + " specified.");
> 
>  Just specify "Insufficient params .."
> 
> 9. It would be good to have a DN check here on client side -- this 
> can be added in a separate patch.
> 
> 10. Should users be able to define the nickname?  I would say "yes" 
> because it might make it easier to notify services like custodia for 
> instance to distribute keys.
> 
> 11. Should we also have the option to define the token in which the 
> key is generated and stored?  ( I think yes - in case for instance, 
> your HSM has limited keys).  Where do the subCA keys get generated by 
> default -- in the software or hardware token?
> 
> 12.  To help clarify this, please describe what would be created
> if one were to add a new subCA using the CLI at reference caRef
> 
> Specifically, 
> a) what database entry is created?
> b) what is the nickname for the key/cert?
> c) Where is the repo (ie. the suffix) for this ca's certs?
> d) Exactly which resources belong to the subCA only?
> 
> 8.  SubCACreateCLI -- this code would be confusing:
> 
>  if (cmdArgs.length < positionalArgNames.length) {
>             System.err.println("Error: No "
>                     + positionalArgNames[cmdArgs.length]
>                     + " specified.");
> 
>  Just specify "Insufficient params .."
> 
> 9. It would be good to have a DN check here on client side -- this 
> can
> be added in a separate patch.
> 
> 10. Should users be able to define the nickname?  I would say "yes"
> because it might make it easier to notify services like custodia for
> instance to distribute keys.
> 
> 11. Should we also have the option to define the token in which the 
> key
> is generated and stored?  ( I think yes - in case for instance, your
> HSM has limited keys).  Where do the subCA keys get generated by
> default -- in the software or hardware token?
> 
> 12.  To help clarify this, please describe what would be created
> if one were to add a new subCA using the CLI at reference caRef
> 
> Specifically, 
> a) what database entry is created?
> b) what is the nickname for the key/cert?
> c) Where is the repo (ie. the suffix) for this ca's certs?
> d) Exactly which resources belong to the subCA only?
> 
> MISSING ITEMS:
> These can be in a separate patch, but if so, we need tickets to track
> them:
> 
> 1. acls
> 2. auditing
> 3. key parameters
> 4. migration scripts (i.e. how to add db entries)
> 5. tests  - we need unit/functional tests to show the data that is 
>    expected and to do basic error checking in the client.  These are
>    very important.  Eventually, we would like tests to be a required
>    part of any check-in.
> 
> Ade  
> 
> On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 17:27 +1000, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> > Hi team,
> > 
> > The latest sub-CAs patches are attached.  It has been a while since
> > the last patchset (that was posted here, anyway) and there have 
> > been
> > some significant changes, outlined below.  (The patchset version
> > skipped a couple numbers due to versions distributed privately that
> > I felt were not stable enough to warrant posting to pki-devel.)
> > 
> > Major changes:
> > 
> > - The Java client and CLI were extracted to a separate patch 
> > (0044).
> > - An LDAP entry for each sub-CA is written to database.
> >   - Database searched and sub-CAs are initialised at startup
> >   - Key nickname is store in / read from LDAP entry
> > - Sub-CA "list" API call, client method and CLI was added
> > - More resources are shared between top-level CA and sub-CAs
> >   - Suprious task threads and LDAP connections hunted down :)
> > 
> > Dependencies:
> > 
> > - Patch 0026-5 probably depends on 0045[1] for a clean merge.
> > - Patch 0044-3 depends on my patch 0046[2].
> > 
> > [1] 
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/pki-devel/2015-August/msg00072.html
> > [2] 
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/pki-devel/2015-August/msg00073.html
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Fraser
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pki-devel mailing list
> Pki-devel at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pki-devel