Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

TLS-Crypt-V2 keys must transfer/inline to a different x509 certificate #231

Open
TinCanTech opened this issue Nov 2, 2021 · 8 comments
Open
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@TinCanTech
Copy link
Owner

Server TLS-Crypt-V2 keys are not tied to any specific X509 server in any cryptological manner, so transferring a key to a new server inline-file should be a simple copy function.

@TinCanTech TinCanTech added the enhancement New feature or request label Nov 2, 2021
@TinCanTech TinCanTech added this to the Version 2.6 milestone Nov 2, 2021
@TinCanTech TinCanTech self-assigned this Nov 2, 2021
@TinCanTech
Copy link
Owner Author

TinCanTech commented Nov 2, 2021

.oO Do I use a new command or a command line option ... ?

@TinCanTech TinCanTech changed the title TLS-Crypt-V2 Server keys must be transferrable to a new Server x509 certificate TLS-Crypt-V2 keys must transfer/inline to a different x509 certificate Nov 7, 2021
@TinCanTech
Copy link
Owner Author

All TLS-Crypt-V2 keys can be used by multiple nodes of the same server or client designation. So, allow for inlining mixed X509 keys with a user selectable TLS-CV2 key.

@TinCanTech
Copy link
Owner Author

TinCanTech commented Nov 7, 2021

A different approach could be to create group keys.

  • Servers
    Each server can only run one server key and can only accept client keys which it created. To run a single server key on multiple servers requires that this server key be accessible to multiple server inline files, this means that the reliance on a X509 Cert $common_name to key $name association must be broken.

Server TLS keys should be group keys by default.

  • Clients
    Clients can all have unique keys but this may not be ideal in some environments. This is where the idea of a group key is more appropriate. This also means that the X509 cert $common_name to TLS Key name association must be broken for clients.

Client keys should allow for group key mode.

ho-hum..

@TinCanTech TinCanTech removed this from the Version 2.6 milestone Nov 9, 2021
@TinCanTech
Copy link
Owner Author

TinCanTech commented Nov 9, 2021

Something like:

  • build-group-key-server ${group_key}
    > server-${group_key}-tcv2.key
  • build-group-key-client ${server_group_key} ${client_group_key}
    > client-${client_group_key}-tcv2.key
    (No hwaddr possible for client group keys)
  • inline-group-key ${x509_common_name} ${${type}_group_key} no-key|add-dh|no-md
    > ${type}-${x509_common_name}-${group_key}.inline

TinCanTech referenced this issue Nov 27, 2021
TinCanTech referenced this issue Nov 27, 2021
TinCanTech referenced this issue Nov 27, 2021
TinCanTech referenced this issue Nov 27, 2021
Signed-off-by: Richard T Bonhomme <[email protected]>
TinCanTech referenced this issue Nov 27, 2021
TinCanTech referenced this issue Dec 15, 2021
The type-labels were: '-grp-srv' Server and '-grp-cli' Client.
These labels force a Server group key to be built before a Client
group key can be built.  This is totally inflexible.

By dropping these 'type-labels' it is possible to build a Client
group key from an existing Server key.  So Groups can be added to
standard Server keys.

Signed-off-by: Richard T Bonhomme <[email protected]>
TinCanTech referenced this issue Dec 15, 2021
Hense forth, all server keys are group keys.

Signed-off-by: Richard T Bonhomme <[email protected]>
@TinCanTech
Copy link
Owner Author

OK - Now a standard server key is suitable. This is good.

@TinCanTech
Copy link
Owner Author

Currently, I am satisfied with how Client-GROUP keys are reusable.

@TinCanTech
Copy link
Owner Author

A Server key could simply be renamed to a new Server X509 name ..

@TinCanTech
Copy link
Owner Author

The server key must be completely free to roam.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant