Project

Profile

Help

Story #4666

As a user I have path checking features for to the X.509 certguard

Added by bmbouter about 1 year ago. Updated 6 months ago.

Status:
NEW
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Sprint/Milestone:
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Platform Release:
Groomed:
Yes
Sprint Candidate:
Tags:
Sprint:

Description

Motivation

It would be very useful for paths to be put into the x.509 extended attributes to see if this client is authorized to access this specific distribution's content. This way whoever is generating the certs (and their expiration dates) determines the access.

Solution

The existing X.509 certguard could automatically be updated to check this correctly. We also need docs with how the openssl tooling can easily make these kind of certs.

How will we ensure path checking is required?

A boolean will be added to the X.509 certguard called path_check_required which will default to False. If True, the certificate check must contain a matching path for the content requested.

History

#1 Updated by bmbouter about 1 year ago

  • Description updated (diff)

revising with details about how users can configure that path checking is required

#2 Updated by bmbouter about 1 year ago

  • Description updated (diff)

#3 Updated by bmbouter about 1 year ago

  • Tags deleted (Pulp 3)

#4 Updated by bmbouter about 1 year ago

  • Groomed changed from No to Yes
  • Sprint Candidate changed from No to Yes

We should add this to the sprint.

#5 Updated by bmbouter about 1 year ago

  • Sprint set to Sprint 54

These weren't added to Sprint 54, but they were OK'd at sprint planning.

#6 Updated by ttereshc about 1 year ago

  • Sprint changed from Sprint 54 to Sprint 55

#7 Updated by dkliban@redhat.com 12 months ago

  • Sprint changed from Sprint 55 to Sprint 56

#8 Updated by rchan 11 months ago

  • Sprint changed from Sprint 56 to Sprint 57

#9 Updated by rchan 11 months ago

  • Sprint changed from Sprint 57 to Sprint 58

#10 Updated by rchan 10 months ago

  • Sprint deleted (Sprint 58)

#11 Updated by rchan 10 months ago

Not moving forward to next Sprint to make room for highest priority Katello blockers.

#12 Updated by rchan 6 months ago

  • Sprint Candidate deleted (Yes)

Please register to edit this issue

Also available in: Atom PDF