Re: [Pki-users] will the new version of RHCS support RHEL6?

On 10/04/2013 02:06 PM, Nathan Kinder wrote: > On 10/04/2013 10:44 AM, Dmitri Pal wrote: >> On 10/04/2013 12:12 PM, Oleg Antonenko wrote: >>> >>> That’s all clear now, thank you Dmitri! >>> >>> Regarding our wish list J >>> >>> Basically we just have evaluated ejbCA, so we want something >>> similar but without EJB and heavy weight app server… i.e. - >>> >>> ?UI for managing certs >>> >> >> Can you define workflows and actors? >> Who does what when to the certs? >> Are certs associated to users or to devices? >> Do you track devices in the CA or somewhere else? >> Are users enterprise users (belong to one company) or internet users >> (any user from the street)? >> >>> ?Support SCEP & OCSP >>> >> >> Dogtag supports both. First as a protocol the second one is the >> component that can be installed and turned on. >> For SCEP do you actually need a SCEP client ? What do you use a SEP >> client? >> Are there any specific features of the SCEP protocol that are >> required that are currently natively not supported by the Dogtag CA? >> >>> ?API for issuing and revoking certs (cert-based request auth is >>> preferrable) -- as we want to integrate out product for revoking certs >>> >> >> The product can be given a keytab and authenticate kerberos to the >> IPA. It is very simple and would be easier to accomplish. >> API for managing serts for hosts and services already available in >> IPA so the question is what the certs are associated with is very >> important. >> Also certmonger can be used for fetching certs and storing them in >> the files or DBs you need. >> Are you aware of certmonger? >> It can be effectively a whole alternative solution. From your portal >> you call Certmonger on the local system via CLI or D-BUS interface >> and it gets a cert for you. >> But I need to understand the workflow better. If you generate he PKI >> pair on you portal and deliver them to a device it is a perfect >> solution. If you use client side software on the mobile platform to >> send the signing request then it is a different workflow and you >> need to send such request to CA. >> >>> ?Desirable - Export a key store (including cert) as PKCS#12, PEM >>> (for manual deployment of certs on e.g. SSL servers). >>> >> >> When and where? During issuance or ability to later export it from >> the back end store? >> >>> As mentioned earlier we are planning to use a CA for issuing and >>> delivering certs to mobile devices via SCEP. >>> >> >> I am sorry I am not familiar with the details of the workflow in >> this case. >> Can you describe the chain of communication between mobile device, >> your portal and CA and what protocols used where? > iOS devices uses SCEP to enroll for certificates. The basic flow is > that you have a "Profile Server", which is responsible for delivering > a XML profile onto the authenticated iOS device. This XML profile > contains details on how the iOS device should contact the CA via > SCEP. When the profile is installed, the SCEP request is made and the > returned certificate is installed. There is a good visual workflow of > this process in this document: > > https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/networkinginternet/... > > This is very helpful. So it seems that IPA CA might be used for this as is. The certs would just not be associeted with any specific entry and leave in the CA storage. Do I get it right?

The trick might be to add additional profile to IPA CA after IPA installation and use that profile instead of the default one in SCEP requests.

Since with Dogtag 10 you have REST API and CLI to add and manage those profiles and the data is sort of orthogonal to IPA data I do not see a reason why portal can't integrate those and use them directly.

> -NGK >> >>> So far we managed to issue certs for iphones via SCEP in ejbCA and >>> Dogtag (pki-ca 9.0.3-30 package). >>> >>> Dogtag wins provided we can carry on using standalone CA services >>> in the future for free as a part of RHEL IPA… >>> >> >> Yes this is a clear winner keeping in mind that we had some distant >> plans about the use case you are describing. Unfortunately we were >> not able to get a good understanding of the details of the use case >> in the past thus so many questions. Sorry. >> >> >> Thanks >> Dmitri >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Oleg >>> >>> *From:*Dmitri Pal [mailto:dpal@redhat.com] >>> *Sent:* 04 October 2013 16:54 >>> *To:* Oleg Antonenko >>> *Cc:* Nathan Kinder (nkinder(a)redhat.com); Ciaran Bradley; >>> pki-users(a)redhat.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [Pki-users] will the new version of RHCS support RHEL6? >>> >>> On 10/04/2013 11:48 AM, Oleg Antonenko wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dmitri, Nathan, >>> >>> Thank you for speedy responses. >>> >>> Could you please confirm my understanding? >>> >>> RHCS is going to be shipped as a part of RHEL7.x in the foreseeable >>> future; >>> >>> >>> It is not "a part" it is a stand alone product and not free. >>> >>> >>> IPA is a free part of RHEL 6.x and will remain as such in the >>> foreseeable future; >>> >>> >>> Correct and same is true for RHEL7.x >>> >>> >>> RHEL 6.x does not ship RHCS, but includes only pki-ca packages in >>> order to support IPA. >>> >>> >>> Correct >>> >>> >>> Could you also clarify your point here ? >>> >>> /The CA portion in RHEL is not supported by Red Hat for standalone >>> use /*/without an entitlement for the rest of RHCS/*/, which isn't >>> available on RHEL 6/ >>> >>> >>> RHCS is a layered product and can be acquired separately. >>> We do not ship a version of RHCS on top of RHEL6. It is a big >>> product and takes a lot of time to deliver. >>> We decided to skip a major RHEL version. >>> >>> >>> Does it mean RHCS is not free? >>> >>> >>> Correct. >>> >>> Regarding this - >>> >>> /We would be actually very interested if we can support this use >>> case with core IPA. >>> Would you be interested in a conversation about this? >>> >>> >>> / >>> >>> Yes, we’d love to. >>> >>> >>> Ok let us have one. >>> I am sorry, I have not been following the whole thread, just this >>> mail caught my eye so what kind of functionality we are looking for? >>> Can you formulate a "wish list" for your use case assuming the CA >>> is a part of IPA? >>> >>> >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> >>> Oleg >>> >>> *From:*pki-users-bounces@redhat.com >>> <mailto:pki-users-bounces@redhat.com> >>> [mailto:pki-users-bounces@redhat.com] *On Behalf Of *Dmitri Pal >>> *Sent:* 04 October 2013 16:21 >>> *To:* pki-users(a)redhat.com <mailto:pki-users@redhat.com> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Pki-users] will the new version of RHCS support RHEL6? >>> >>> On 10/04/2013 11:08 AM, Oleg Antonenko wrote: >>> >>> Hi Nathan, >>> >>> Could you please shed some light on the future plans for the pki-ca >>> portion of RHEL? >>> >>> Will it be included in the standard RHEL distribution in the future? >>> >>> >>> Dogtag 10+ will become a RHSC product on top of RHEL7.x >>> >>> Some of its portions will be gradually included into IPA that comes >>> for free with RHEL. >>> IMO full blown IPA is not that "full blown" in this case. >>> >>> We would be actually very interested if we can support this use >>> case with core IPA. >>> Would you be interested in a conversation about this? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Dmitri >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m asking because we’re planning to use the CA bit only for >>> issuing certificates to mobile devices via SCEP. We do not require >>> any other services or the full blown IPA… >>> >>> With thanks, >>> >>> Oleg >>> >>> *From:*pki-users-bounces@redhat.com >>> <mailto:pki-users-bounces@redhat.com> >>> [mailto:pki-users-bounces@redhat.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Kinder >>> *Sent:* 27 September 2013 20:03 >>> *To:* pki-users(a)redhat.com <mailto:pki-users@redhat.com> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Pki-users] will the new version of RHCS support RHEL6? >>> >>> On 09/26/2013 10:25 PM, 安 泱 wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm a beginner of the dogtag certificate system, >>> dogtag（RHCS）is a wonderful project, but I'm confused about >>> RHCS, could you give any help? >>> >>> The latest version of RHCS is 8.1, which is based on dogtag >>> 8.1, it supports RHEL5.8, and in RHEL6, pki-ca 9.0.3 was >>> included without the other 5 subsystems, could you show me the >>> consideration why RHCS do not support RHEL6? >>> Is RHEL6 not secure enough or some other reasons？ >>> >>> It was simply not a targeted platform (nor are there plans to >>> release it there). The pki-ca portion is included for use by IdM >>> (based on the FreeIPA project). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -NGK >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards. >>> An Yang >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pki-users mailing list >>> Pki-users(a)redhat.com <mailto:Pki-users@redhat.com> >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pki-users >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pki-users mailing list >>> Pki-users(a)redhat.com <mailto:Pki-users@redhat.com> >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pki-users >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thank you, >>> Dmitri Pal >>> >>> Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio >>> Red Hat Inc. >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> Looking to carve out IT costs? >>> www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/ <http://www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thank you, >>> Dmitri Pal >>> >>> Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio >>> Red Hat Inc. >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> Looking to carve out IT costs? >>> www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/ <http://www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Thank you, >> Dmitri Pal >> >> Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio >> Red Hat Inc. >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> Looking to carve out IT costs? >> www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/ >> >> > -- Thank you, Dmitri Pal Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio Red Hat Inc. ------------------------------- Looking to carve out IT costs? www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/