I am working on a project (ticket, design) to simplify creating certificates in FreeIPA. Currently administrators must generate a Certificate Signing Request (CSR) matching the type of certificate they wish to issue. They submit this CSR to FreeIPA using the ipa cert-request command, and if all the specified fields match the data FreeIPA has about the certificate subject, a cert will be issued. This seems a bit silly; if FreeIPA has this information already, can't it automatically generate a CSR with the correct data?

However, different certificate applications require different data, so the Certificate Profile (a concept from the Dogtag CA that specifies the fields in the cert, constraints on their values, and how the final values should be constructed) needs to contain information on how to transform the data in FreeIPA into the fields of the certificate. Further, different administrators may want to use different tools to manage their private keys, so we must be able to communicate these certificate field values back in formats understood by different utilities such as openssl and certutil. Those tools will be responsible for generating the actual CSR from the provided configuration.

As suggested in the Mapping Rules design, the first implementation of this system used python to implement the low-level formatting rules, such as return the user's email address, prefixed by the string 'email:'. However, it is a goal of this project to allow new rules to be added at runtime, so these rules must be text-based rather than part of the code. This post will try to imagine what the rules would look like if implemented using the Jinja2 templating language.


We must at a minimum be able to generate two different types of configuration, the openssl config file:

``` [ req ] prompt = no encrypt_key = no

distinguished_name = dn req_extensions = exts


[ exts ] subjectAltName=@SAN

[ SAN ] dirName=SANdn

[ SANdn ] 1.DC=com 2.DC=example CN=users UID=user ```

and the certutil command line:

certutil -R -a -s "CN=user,O=DOMAIN.EXAMPLE.COM" --extSAN ",dn:UID=user;CN=users;DC=example;DC=com"

Some interesting things to note about these formats:

  • The contents of an extension can be constructed from multiple sources, such as an email address and a distinguished name.
  • The openssl format is hierarchical. Some parameters, such as req_extensions and dirName always refer to the name of a new config section. Others can optionally refer to a config section using an @.
  • In openssl, the certificate subject is created under the [req] section, while extensions are created under their own section.
  • Openssl has a quirky way of denoting distinguished names. They are ordered from least to most specific (opposite how LDAP presents them). And if two AVAs have the same attribute type, they must be prefixed with different strings ending in . (or : or ,) as the config file format will otherwise discard all but one.
  • Certutil is also a bit quirky about distinguished names in the Subject Alt Name extension. Because the argument to the extSAN flag is comma-delimited, the components of the DN must be separated using a different delimiter, like a semicolon.


Two-pass data interpolation

((user data -> data rules) -> syntax rules) -> output

One way we can approach constructing one extension from multiple sources it to use two sets of rules - one rule for each data item that provides a value for the extension, and one rule specifying the name and syntax of the extension as a whole. We evaulate the data rules first, then feed the values produced into the associated syntax rules to get the final output for that extension. Finally, the extension output is passed to the formatter, to produce the final output. We wish to express the data and syntax rules using the templating language, but the formatters (one for each CSR generation tool) will be implemented as python classes.

So how do we represent openssl sections in this scheme? The formatter needs to accept input in a (very limited) markup language, which defines where the sections are, what goes into them, and perhaps whether a given line should be placed under [req] or [exts]. Even with the features of the formatter markup very limited, it would still be possible for a user to accidentally or intentionally inject some markup that would make it impossible to generate a certificate for them. So, some kind of escaping is also needed, but it would be jinja2 template markup escaping, not the HTML escaping that jinja2 already supports.

Example data rules:

{% raw %} email={{}}

O={{config.ipacertificatesubjectbase}}\nCN={{subject.username}} {% endraw %}

Example syntax rules: {% raw %} --extSAN {{values|join(',')}}

subjectAltName=@{{{% endraw %}{% raw %}'{% section %}'}}{{values|join('\n')}}{{{% endraw %}{% raw %}'{% endsection %}'}} {% endraw %}

That's a lot of braces! We have to escape the section and endsection tags sequences so they will appear verbatim in the final template, producing something like:

{% raw %} subjectAltName=@{% section %}email={{}} URI={{subject.inetuserhttpurl}}{% endsection %} {% endraw %} If we used a different type of markup for the user data interpolation and for denoting sections, the escaping would not be necessary; however, we would still need to preprocess the values to escape any jinja2 markup that comes from the user data, and we would still have two types of markup being used in parallel.

Note, too, that the section tag does not exist yet in jinja2; it would need to be implemented as an extension.

Two-pass template interpolation

(user data -> (data rules -> syntax rules)) -> output

Alternatively, we can do the substitution on the templates themselves before interpolating user data, building up one big template that we then render with the data from the database. This is safer because the user-specified data never gets interpreted as a template, so we don't have to worry about escaping the user data or limiting the features of the template language. On the other hand, this may be challenging for the rule writer, because one must keep in mind the number of times a given rule will be run through the templating engine to get the escaping correct. Data rules will be used as templates only once (consuming user data) but syntax rules will be used as templates once to incorporate the data rules into the templates, and then again when the user data is included. Thus, any template tags relating to the processing of user data (such as, I imagine, ones for specifying openssl sections) need to be escaped.

Surprisingly, this hardly changes the way the rules are written! All of the example rules given above would still be valid, but the values would be the data rules themselves rather than data rules with interpolated user data. And of course, the values would not be escaped beforehand.

Template-based hierarchical rules

user data -> collected rules -> output

One way to get away from escaping and multiple evaluations is to redesign the template so that the order of its elements no longer matters. That is, the hierarchical relationships between data items, certificate extensions, and the CSR as a whole could be encoded using jinja2 tags. It's probably easiest to explain this idea with an example:

{% highlight jinja %} {% raw %} {% group req %} {% entry req %}extensions={% group exts %}{% endentry %} {% entry req %}distinguished_name={% group subjectDN %}{% endentry %} {% entry subjectDN %}O={{config.ipacertificatesubjectbase}}\nCN={{subject.username}}{% endentry %} {% entry exts %}subjectAltName=@{% group SAN %}{% endentry %} {% entry SAN %}email={{}}{% endentry %} {% entry SAN %}URI={{subject.inetuserhttpurl}}{% endentry %} {% endraw %} {% endhighlight %}

The config for certutil would be quite similar: {% highlight jinja %} {% raw %} certutil -R -a {% group opts %} {% entry opts %}-s {% group subjectDN %}{% endentry %} {% entry opts %}--extSAN {% group SAN %}{% endentry %} {% entry subjectDN %}CN={{subject.username}},O={{config.ipacertificatesubjectbase}}{% endentry %} {% entry SAN %}email:{{}}{% endentry %} {% entry SAN %}uri:{{subject.inetuserhttpurl}}{% endentry %} {% endraw %} {% endhighlight %}

Each CSR generation helper would have its own notion of "groups," which would be implemented as jinja2 extensions. The entries of a group would be collected and inserted into the group in whatever way was appropriate for that helper. Each line of these templates would be either a cert mapping rule referenced in the cert profile, or something built into the formatter for the CSR generation helper. There would be no distinction between data rules and syntax rules, and the order that rules appeared in the template would be irrelevant because the tags specified the hierarchy.

This approach has some downsides, too:

  1. Section names are now specified in the rules, which means there could be conflicts between different rules, and that a rule can only ever be included in a particular section. If two sections need the same data, two different rules are needed.
  2. Some types of groups are formatted differently from others (e.g. in certutil, opts is space-separated, while SAN is comma-separated. It's not entirely clear where this should be encoded, and how.

Concern #1 is probably an ok tradeoff, as it's not clear how broadly reusable rules will be anyway. However, #2 would need to be addressed in any actual implementation.

Formatter-based hierarchical rules

user data -> low-level rule -> formatting code -> group objects group objects -> higher-level rule -> formatting code -> group objects ... group objects -> top-level rule -> output

Instead of linking rules together into a hierarchy using tags, leaving it to the templating engine to interpret that structure, we could encode the structure in the rule entities themselves and use multiple evaluations to handle the hierarchy in the formatter, before the data even gets to the templating engine. Each rule would be stored with the name of the group within which it should be rendered, as well as the names of any groups that the rule includes. For example, to adapt the rule {% raw %}{% entry exts %}subjectAltName=@{% group SAN %}{% endentry %}{% endraw %} to this schema, we would say that it is an element of the "exts" group, and provides the "SAN" group. By linking up group elements to group providers, we construct a tree of rules.

The formatter would evaluate these rules beginning at the leaves and passing the results of child nodes into variables in the parent node templates. The formatter is responsible for determining what exactly gets passed into the parent node, such as an object representing an openssl config section, or just a list of formatted strings. Parent nodes decide how to present the passed objects, such as by comma-separating the strings or referencing the name of the section. This addresses concern #2 from the previous approach, because the tools of the jinja2 language are now available for expressing how to format the results of groups of rules.

Example leaf rules:

{% raw %} group: SAN template: email={{}}

group: subjectDN template: O={{config.ipacertificatesubjectbase}}\nCN={{subject.username}} {% endraw %}

Example parent rules: {% raw %} group: opts groupProvided: SAN template: --extSAN {{ SAN|join(',') }}

group: exts groupProvided: SAN template: subjectAltName=@{{ SAN.section_name }} {% endraw %}

This has several advantages over the two-pass interpolation approaches:

  1. Profiles are simpler to configure, because they just contain a list of references to rules rather than a structured list of groups of rules.
  2. Profiles are also simpler to implement, with no sub-objects in the database.
  3. It's no longer necessary to pay attention to escaping when writing rules. Each rule is used as a template exactly once, and complex structures are handled by the formatter code rather than template tags so tags don't need to be passed along.
  4. User data is never used as a template, which reduces the attack surface.

However, there are also some potential concerns:

  1. Whether the openssl and certutil hierarchies for rules are compatible (i.e. can the parent group can be listed in the mapping rule or must it be in the transformation rule?)
  2. Are there any instances where something needs to be a group but can't be its own openssl section? How would we convey this to the openssl formatter?
  3. Conversely, are there cases where we would want to be able to create a section without creating a new rule? For example, a DN in a subject alternative name needs to be its own section. Do we then need rules just for filling out parts of that DN?


Although hierarchical rules seem like an interesting solution to avoid escaping and simplify the configuration in the cert profile itself, I think the interpolation approaches are easier to understand and explain, which is valuable for this already unexpectedly-complex feature.

Even though it is a little counter-intuitive, I lean towards the template interpolation solution rather than the straightforward data interpolation one because it doesn't incorporate user data until the last step. This would make it incompatible with the existing python-based rules, but those are going to be replaced anyway, and in fact they may be vulnerable to injection attacks as well. Escaping of tags that are to be interpreted by the formatter will still be inconvenient, but we may be able to provide extensions to the template language to make that easier.

If you are interested in discussing any of these options, feel free to email me directly at the address below, or share your thoughts with the freeipa-devel mailing list. Thanks!