osdir.com

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DISCUSS] New VPN implementation based on IKEv2 backed by Vault


One of the things Vault does is essentially one of the thing Let's Encrypt
does,
acting as CA and generating/signing certificates.

>From the Vault website itself:

"HashiCorp Vault secures, stores, and tightly controls access to tokens,
passwords,
certificates, API keys, and other secrets in modern computing. Vault
handles leasing,
key revocation, key rolling, and auditing. Through a unified API, users can
access an
encrypted Key/Value store and network encryption-as-a-service, or generate
AWS
IAM/STS credentials, SQL/NoSQL databases, X.509 certificates, SSH
credentials,
and more."

In our case we are going to use Vault as PKI backend engine, to act as Root
CA,
sign certificates, handle CRL (Certificate Revocation List), etc.
Technically we can
do these with Let's Encrypt, but I haven't started exploring the
possibilities or potential
limitation. Using external services (such as Let's Encrypt) or going
forward with
Bring You Own Certificate model would be for future, it they ever made
sense to do.



On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
rafaelweingartner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Got it. Thanks for the explanations.
> There is one other thing I do not understand. This Vault thing that you
> mention, how does it work? Is it similar to let's encrypt?
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Khosrow Moossavi <kmoossavi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
> > rafaelweingartner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > So, you need a certificate that is signed by the CA that is used by the
> > VPN
> > > service. Is that it?
> > >
> > >
> > Correct, a self signed "server certificate" against CA, to be installed
> > directly on VR.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It has been a while that I do not configure these VPN systems; do you
> > need
> > > access to the private key of the CA? Or, does the program simply
> validate
> > > the user (VPN client) certificate to see if it is issued by a specific
> > CA?
> > > I believe it also needs the public key of the user to execute the
> > handshake
> > > and create the connection.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > No, end user only needs to have Root CA at hand, to *trust* it. Both the
> > "Server
> > Certificate" and "Server Private Key" are sensitive information and only
> > exist  on
> > VR.
> >
> > User then can go ahead and install the Root CA on their local machine and
> > open
> > up VPN connection with strongSwan client of the correspondning OS they're
> > on
> > import the Root CA, and their credential (EAP on VPN side), and that's
> it.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Khosrow Moossavi <
> > kmoossavi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rafael,
> > > >
> > > > We cannot use SshKeyPair functionality because the proposed VPN
> > > > implementation
> > > > does need a signed certificate and not a ssh key pair. The process is
> > as
> > > > follow:
> > > >
> > > > 1) generate root CA (if doesn't exist)
> > > > 2) generate bunch of intermediate steps (config urls, CRLs, role
> name,
> > > ...)
> > > > [I'm not going
> > > > in detail now, here, for simplicity]
> > > > 3) self sign a certificate against the root CA (regenerate every time
> > > start
> > > > VPN command
> > > > executed)
> > > >
> > > > This will produce:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Root CA cert (one per domain in cloudstack)
> > > > 2) Server cert (one per VR)
> > > > 3) Server private key (one per VR)
> > > >
> > > > Then all the above will be pushed to the said VR we want to start VPN
> > on,
> > > > and start
> > > > ipsec service on it (with extra configuration - which will be
> available
> > > in
> > > > codebase) and
> > > > finally present Root CA for user to download and install on their
> local
> > > > machine to be
> > > > able to "trust" VR they are VPNing to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 6:19 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
> > > > rafaelweingartner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Khosrow thanks for the interesting feature. You mention two
> possible
> > > > > methods to manage certificates; one using the CA framework, and
> other
> > > > using
> > > > > third party such as Vault and Let’s Encrypt.
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you considered using the sshKeyPair API methods (is it part of
> > the
> > > > CA
> > > > > framework?)? I mean, users already can generate key pairs via ACS,
> > and
> > > > then
> > > > > they are presented with the private key. You could simply list
> these
> > > > > certificates for the user when they want to configure a new
> > certificate
> > > > for
> > > > > a VPN or generate one in runtime using this feature. Reading your
> > > feature
> > > > > proposal I did not understand how you are binding certificated
> with a
> > > VPN
> > > > > (are you always generating new ones and simply returning the
> private
> > > key
> > > > to
> > > > > users?).
> > > > >
> > > > > Moreover, as the sshKeyPair methods, I do believe you should only
> > > return
> > > > > the private key once. Therefore, you should not store it in ACS.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Khosrow Moossavi <
> > > kmoossavi@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Community
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want to open up a discussion around the new Remote Access VPN
> > > > > > implementation on VRs. Currently
> > > > > > we have only L2TP implementation, which lacks different features
> > > (such
> > > > as
> > > > > > verbos logging), so we
> > > > > > decided to start developing new implementation based on IKEv2 (on
> > top
> > > > of
> > > > > > the existing strongSwan).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have this feature working locally for over a week now, and
> seems
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > ready for opening up a
> > > > > > PR on official repo. But before doing so we agreed to open up a
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > > here first.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The current implementation we use EAP + Public Key for
> > > authentication,
> > > > so
> > > > > > we need to have a PKI
> > > > > > Engine somewhere. Rather than start re-inventing the wheel (and
> > start
> > > > > > extending the current CA Framework
> > > > > > which was done by Rohit) we decided to delegate this
> functionality
> > to
> > > > > > HashiCorp Vault, which will act as
> > > > > > a PKI backend engine for Cloudstack.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The way I implemented this specific part of the code, is that it
> > can
> > > > > easily
> > > > > > be extended/implemented with other
> > > > > > concrete classes or designs (such as going forward with in-house
> > PKI
> > > > > > engine, or even use external services
> > > > > > such as Let's Encrypt), but at the end of the day we strongly
> > suggest
> > > > to
> > > > > > use Vault, as it is really easy to use.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please find the design document here[1], and share your
> feedback. I
> > > > will
> > > > > > open up a PR -as is- soon to be able
> > > > > > to have a source code to discuss around it as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/
> > > > > > VPN+Implementation+based+on+IKEv2+backed+by+Vault+as+PKI+Engine
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Khosrow Moossavi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cloud Infrastructure Developer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > t 514.447.3456
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Rafael Weingärtner
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rafael Weingärtner
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner
>