Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 17 Sep 2020 02:16:36 +0000
From:      Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>
To:        John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com>
Cc:        "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: rfc: should extant TLS connections be closed when a CRL is updated?
Message-ID:  <YTBPR01MB39665170E3F8EF9D91DFEE26DD3E0@YTBPR01MB3966.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <20200904223726.GK4213@funkthat.com>
References:  <YTBPR01MB39668EB1E7D4B42DFC5F50A6DD2D0@YTBPR01MB3966.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>, <20200904223726.GK4213@funkthat.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John-Mark Gurney wrote:=0A=
>Rick Macklem wrote this message on Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 01:20 +0000:=0A=
>> The server side NFS over TLS daemon (rpc.tlsservd) can reload an updated=
=0A=
>> CRL (Certificate Revocation List) when a SIGHUP is posted to it.=0A=
>> However, it does not SSL_shutdown()/close() extant TCP connections using=
 TLS.=0A=
>> (Those would only be closed if the daemon is restarted.)=0A=
>>=0A=
>> I am now thinking that, maybe, an SSL_shutdown()/close() should be done =
on=0A=
>> all extant TCP connections using NFS over TLS when an updated CRL is loa=
ded,=0A=
>> since a connection might have used a revoked certificate for its handsha=
ke.=0A=
>>=0A=
>> What do others think?=0A=
>=0A=
>IMO, this should scan the existing connections, and only shut them=0A=
>down if they are using a revoked Cert.  This is the correct way to=0A=
>do things.=0A=
>=0A=
>I do realize that this is likely not possible, and in reality, the=0A=
>ssl library in use should do this automatically, but likely does not.=0A=
Well, not exactly "automatically, but X509_CRL_get0_by_ccert() checks=0A=
to see if a certificate is revoked, so all the code needed to do was=0A=
read the CRL file and then loop through the certificates, checking=0A=
each one.=0A=
=0A=
>As the library likely does not, we should probably make this an=0A=
>option to close all connections upon CRL reload, with it being well=0A=
>documented.=0A=
>=0A=
>Now that option should likely be set to default on, but documented=0A=
>such that if you do regular/often CRL reloads, that a user may want=0A=
>to turn that off if it's disruptive to their server.=0A=
Not necessary, since doing just the revoked ones seems to work.=0A=
=0A=
If you are curious, you can look at the recent commits or code=0A=
under head/projects/nfs-over-tls.=0A=
=0A=
If anyone is interested in testing it, you can look at:=0A=
https://people.freebsd.org/~rmacklem/nfs-over-tls-setup.txt=0A=
=0A=
Thanks for the useful suggestion, rick=0A=
=0A=
--=0A=
  John-Mark Gurney                              Voice: +1 415 225 5579=0A=
=0A=
     "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."=0A=
=0A=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YTBPR01MB39665170E3F8EF9D91DFEE26DD3E0>