Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature: By default, require only self-signed certificates in a bundle #4

Open
Tracked by #242
SgtCoDFish opened this issue Jul 28, 2021 · 5 comments
Open
Tracked by #242
Labels
help wanted Denotes an issue that needs help from a contributor. Must meet "help wanted" guidelines. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.

Comments

@SgtCoDFish
Copy link
Member

Writing down what occurred to me at the end of the cert-manager biweekly meeting on 28/07

An issue with administering trust bundles is that it's very easy + tempting for users to put intermediates in the trust store as a way of "fixing" trust issues. Usually this occurs when an app is buggy and only sends the leaf certificate without its chain, and explicitly trusting the leaf's issuing intermediate CA seems to fix the problem for them. Crucially, when that intermediate is then rotated their app will break.

We could add a toggle, defaulting to false, such as allowIntermediateCertificates. If false, it would parse every certificate and ensure that it's self-signed. There might be other ways of achieving the same goal.

Having this in from the start could prevent so many misconfigurations by unsuspecting cluster admins.

(Complication: If we added a list of publicly trusted certs it'd probably need to default to allowing intermediates in that list by default - but we could definitely default to disallowing intermediates everywhere else)

@SgtCoDFish SgtCoDFish added the kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. label Jul 28, 2021
@james-callahan
Copy link

This would disallow cross signing roots. While probably a good default, it shouldn't be added without the toggle.

@erikgb
Copy link
Contributor

erikgb commented Sep 24, 2023

Somehow related to #155, at least the changes would touch overlapping areas of code.

/good-first-issue

@jetstack-bot jetstack-bot added good first issue Denotes an issue ready for a new contributor, according to the "help wanted" guidelines. help wanted Denotes an issue that needs help from a contributor. Must meet "help wanted" guidelines. labels Sep 24, 2023
@erikgb
Copy link
Contributor

erikgb commented Nov 23, 2023

/remove-good-first-issue

At least if we like to enable this by default - which could break some users.

@jetstack-bot jetstack-bot removed the good first issue Denotes an issue ready for a new contributor, according to the "help wanted" guidelines. label Nov 23, 2023
@cert-manager-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.
/lifecycle stale

@cert-manager-prow cert-manager-prow bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Nov 6, 2024
@erikgb
Copy link
Contributor

erikgb commented Nov 6, 2024

/remove-lifecycle stale

@cert-manager-prow cert-manager-prow bot removed the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Nov 6, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
help wanted Denotes an issue that needs help from a contributor. Must meet "help wanted" guidelines. kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants