[Freeipa-devel] DNSSEC design page

[Simo Sorce]

On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 16:18 +0100, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> On 25.2.2014 16:11, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 15:59 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
> >> On 25.2.2014 15:11, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 14:54 +0100, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> >>>>> Any reason why we should follow in detail what softshm does ?
> >>>> because I did't know what is really needed. If you want to have a
> >>>> pkcs11
> >>>> module, which stores data in ldap, I though it should have all the
> >>>> attributes potentially needed.
> >>>> Jan said taht OpenDNSSEC uses CKA_VERIFY, CKA_ENCRYPT, CKA_WRAP,
> >>>> CKA_SIGN, CKA_DECRYPT, CKA_UNWRAP, CKA_SENSITIVE, CKA_PRIVATE,
> >>>> CKA_EXTRACTABLE,
> >>>> so there is at least one requirement for fine grained attributes.
> >>>
> >>> Does OpenDNSSEC store them as separate entities and need access to them
> >>> independently ?
> >> AFAIK OpenDNSSEC uses purely PKCS#11 for key manipulation so LDAP schema
> >> doesn't matter as long as our PKCS#11 module can derive all values defined by
> >> standard.
> >>
> >> Honza, you did investigate OpenDNSSEC integration, please add some details if
> >> you can.
> >>
> >>> Or is this internal use that can be satisfied by unpacking a blob in
> >>> OpenDNSSEC ?
> >>>
> >>> What does bind9 uses ? Petr, can you provide example key files ?
> >>
> >> Private+public keys stored in files:
> >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2014-February/msg00463.html
> >>
> >> Private keys stored in HSM and public keys in files:
> >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2014-February/msg00333.html
> >> (I.e. some values in .private file are replaced by PKCS#11 label.)
> >
> > Ok it seem clear to me we do not need to spell out a lot of values when
> > using pkcs#11 as bind doesn't need them in the key files. So I assume it
> > can query the pkcs#11 module to find what it needs.
> >
> > I would use these key files as a sort of guide to understand what we
> > need in LDAP. I would try to put in a single blob as much as we can that
> > we do not explicitly need by a client querying LDAP directly.
> >
> > I think in order to nail down exactly what we need, at this point, we
> > require some example use cases and queries the various clients would
> > perform with spelled out what they are looking for to identify or
> > manipulate keys.
> >
> > Simo.
> >
> 
> See "How applications interact with PKCS#11" at 
> <http://www.freeipa.org/page/V3/PKCS11_in_LDAP>. Tl;dr: applications 
> don't search for keys by key data, but by metadata, so like I said in 
> the other thread, key data can be in a single blob, but metadata should 
> be in separate attributes.

Ah sorry, I hadn't looked at that one yet.
It helps quite a bit.

So are the class, key_type, id, label, token, 'sign' the only values we
should really care to split off ?

Can you describe what are these values ?
What is class ? Why is it important, and how does it differ from
key_type ?
What is the token ? What is 'sign' ?

Feel free to give references to specific documents to read up about
these attributes.

Thanks,
Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York