Re: docker, 389ds/dirsrv:2.0, vendorVersion 2.1.0, ssca, certificate chain, orphan key, cert9.db, key4.db

David Ritenour <d.ritenour@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:19:06 +0000

Hi Lutz,

Good catch!  Not sure where the -J came from.  Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks,
Dave

David Ritenour
Senior Directory Engineer
MartinFederal Consulting, LLC
513 Madison Street SE
Huntsville, AL 35801

From: Lutz Berger <lutz.berger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2022 12:15 PM

To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project. <389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; David Ritenour <d.ritenour@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: Re: [389-users] Re: docker, 389ds/dirsrv:2.0, vendorVersion 2.1.0, ssca, certificate chain, orphan key, cert9.db, key4.db

**
WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
 the content is safe. 

Hi David,

forget my statement about the "-J" option, I noticed in your examples

that you actually meant "-F" :-)

Best regards,

  Lutz

Dipl.-Inform. Univ. Lutz Berger

Kettwiger Straße 43

45468 Mülheim an der Ruhr

Telefon: +49 208 88351714

Telefax: +49 208 88351707

Mobil: +49 173 3289783

E-Mail: lutz.berger@xxxxxxxxxxxx

USt-IdNr.: DE280466318

On 18.03.22 22:50, Lutz Berger wrote:

Hi David,

thanks for your input.

There are a couple of versions of "certutil" out there. None of mine support the "-J" option.

I did even look into the source code.

The nature of my question is not about curing the symptoms 

by removing the orphaned private key, it's more about removing

the cause, why it gets stored into the databases.

To be more specific here:

When I look into my docker container

with "docker exec -i -t ur1 /bin/bash", I see:

89653e311778:/ # cd /data

89653e311778:/data # ls -l

total 16

...

drwxrwxrwx. 2 root root  156 Mar 16 14:42 ssca

drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root   52 Mar 16 12:27 tls

89653e311778:/data #

So, the ssca subdirectory is populated with certificate/key

database related stuff, e.g. noise file, pin file, pwdfile

and self-signed certificate and private key.

But: The ssca is generated after all certificates are

given in the tls directory ( see time stamps of the

subdirectories ).

If you look into the errors log, you'll notice that there is a

mechanism "slapd_extract_cert" that scans for certificates

and keys:

[16/Mar/2022:14:56:10.258591345 +0000] - INFO - slapd_extract_cert - CA CERT NAME: /data/tls/ca/XXXXXXServerCA2015.crt

[16/Mar/2022:14:56:10.259368225 +0000] - INFO - slapd_extract_cert - CA CERT NAME: Self-Signed-CA

At the end of the day everything gets stored into config subdirectory..

I thought, that the "Self-Signed-CA" cert and key should not be

stored into databases at all - because unnecessary when the 

tls directory is given, because it contains cert and private key.

So "slapd_extract_cert" should not extract cert/key from "ssca"

if a valid cert/key is given in "tls".

Hopefully my explanation is clear enough. 

As William pointed out: Everything works fine... it's more

a side effect for the certificate connoisseur ;-)

Feedback is welcome!

Thanks and best regards,

  Lutz

Dipl.-Inform. Univ. Lutz Berger

Kettwiger Straße 43

45468 Mülheim an der Ruhr

E-Mail: lutz.berger@xxxxxxxxxxxx

USt-IdNr.: DE280466318

On 18.03.22 14:04, David Ritenour wrote:

Hello Lutz and William,

I have used the certutil -J option to remove orphaned private keys from the NSS key database (in this case key3.db).  I always make a tarball backup of the three NSS database files (cert8.db, key3.db, secmod.db) before performing the operation just in case something goes awry.

Example:
#List private keys in NSS keystore
certutil -K -d /etc/dirsrv/slapd-mydir/alias/
certutil: Checking token "NSS FIPS 140-2 Certificate DB" in slot "NSS FIPS 140-2 User Private Key Services"
Enter Password or Pin for "NSS FIPS 140-2 Certificate DB":
< 0> rsa      ea4730830deb0dd40a7b2f6d4578a28132ae0251   NSS FIPS 140-2 Certificate DB:Server-Cert
< 1> rsa      0c7130b409a03ae2752b0cba6a6dc834d7d5dfb0   (orphan)

#Remove the orphaned key using its keyid
certutil -F -k 0c7130b409a03ae2752b0cba6a6dc834d7d5dfb0 -d /etc/dirsrv/slapd-mydir/alias/
Enter Password or Pin for "NSS FIPS 140-2 Certificate DB":

##List private keys again
certutil -K -d /etc/dirsrv/slapd-mydir/alias/
certutil: Checking token "NSS FIPS 140-2 Certificate DB" in slot "NSS FIPS 140-2 User Private Key Services"
Enter Password or Pin for "NSS FIPS 140-2 Certificate DB":
< 0> rsa      ea4730830deb0dd40a7b2f6d4578a28132ae0251   NSS FIPS 140-2 Certificate DB:Server-Cert

Thanks,
Dave

David Ritenour
Senior Directory Engineer
MartinFederal Consulting, LLC
513 Madison Street SE
Huntsville, AL 35801

-----Original Message-----
From: William Brown <william.brown@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2022 7:02 PM
To: Lutz Berger <lutz.berger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [389-users] Re: docker, 389ds/dirsrv:2.0, vendorVersion 2.1.0, ssca, certificate chain, orphan key, cert9.db, key4.db

** WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

On 17 Mar 2022, at 20:50, Lutz Berger <lutz.berger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 16.03.22 23:39, William Brown wrote:

An orphan key doesn't look nice, but I am more worried about the
unnecessary stuff in the databases

So the orphan key is the "original" server-cert key that was orphaned since you loaded your own key. It's honestly harmless. Everything else appears to have imported correctly which is excellent!

OK, agreed. It is harmless, but also not needed. Usually, I choose to use only one private key in my key3.db or key4.db.
My assumption was, that if I provide certificates in the tls
subdirectory, the ssca directory is not even used at all, since the key and cert that are effectively used are stored in the config directory and its databases.

and the failing openssl certificate validation.

We'll need to see the output of 'openssl -_client -connect url1.XXXXXX.de:3636 -showcerts' to see what is or isn't self signed in the chain. It could just simply be that your ROOTCA/ServerCA aren't trusted by your openssl install of the host.

Due to NDA I can't provide more details. But the problem is not
related to self-signed-certs as indicated by openssl's error messages, it's really that I didn't properly specify rootCA/ServerCA.

It works now with:

cat XXXXXXROOTCA2015.crt > ./chain.crt cat XXXXXXServerCA2015.crt >>
./chain.crt openssl s_client -connect ur1.sedevsso.XXXXXX.de:3636
-CAfile <path>/ca/chain.crt :

...
...
SSL handshake has read 4776 bytes and written 427 bytes
---
New, TLSv1/SSLv3, Cipher is ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 Server
public key is 2048 bit Secure Renegotiation IS supported
Compression: NONE
Expansion: NONE
No ALPN negotiated
SSL-Session:
    Protocol  : TLSv1.2
    Cipher    : ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256
    Session-ID: 003BB677D15FC7C0490D3E795F193AB103D1E579D2F554086B63853DA9916525
    Session-ID-ctx:
    Master-Key: D050F13AD8343F825E4602F57BFFDB7BFBF38438E9ED497C9626F973C7772EC0D52C92B68E4BE087AF49C1DE4C2FB06A
    Key-Arg   : None
    Krb5 Principal: None
    PSK identity: None
    PSK identity hint: None
    Start Time: 1647338825
    Timeout   : 300 (sec)
    Verify return code: 0 (ok)
---

You should only need ROOTCA for -CA, since the chain will be presented by 389-ds itself as you have the chain on the server. Otherwise yep, sounds like you just need to ensure clients have the ca cert setup correctly.

Happy to help!

This is to confirm, that

openssl s_client -connect ur1.XXXXXX.XXXXXX.de:3636 -CAfile /root/389ds/tls/ca/XXXXXROOTCA2015.crt

works. So, yes, only the root cert of a chain (and not the whole chain) is needed for server-cert validation done by openssl.

You are the man, William!
Thank you so much.

You are most welcome :)

Still, I suggest to remove the ssca stuff, if a customer provides his own cert chain.
Even if everything works properly, I think it's unnecessary to store the ssca cert
and key in the databases. From a troubleshooting perspective it's a bit misleading
in my opinion. Or is there a benefit of keeping it that I do not see?

It's not that there is a benefit as much as "NSS makes it a complete pain" to remove keys. That's why I never really bothered to actually do it in these cases when we are loading in the data from PEM's :(

--
Sincerely,

William Brown

Senior Software Engineer,
Identity and Access Management
SUSE Labs, Australia
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email and any such files in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email and/or any such files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please immediately notify hr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - (855) 212-1810 , and destroy the original message and any such files.
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended
 recipient, be advised that you have received this email and any such files in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email and/or any such files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please
 immediately notify hr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - (855) 212-1810 , and destroy the original message and any such files.

_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure