On 05/12/2014 06:08 PM, David Boreham wrote:
On 5/12/2014 9:53 AM, Elizabeth Jones wrote:
> Do the certs have to have the server hostnames in them or can I create a
> cert that has a virtual name and put that on all the LDAP servers?
if the GTM there's a two way SSL connection handling which doesn't have
anything to-do with the hosts serving the requests. The GTM address
certificate is the one which is visible to your clients otherwise you
would need to know within your application which host name you are going
to connect to ... obsoletes Load balancing a little bit ;)
the complete path gets encrypted by enabled SSL from the GTM to the back
end systems where you need to either deploy a client certificate for
authentication (if necessary) or simply just encrypt the traffic
(considerable if you can ensure that there's no possibility for others
to spoof the back end system in a kind of man-in-the middle szenario.
the point you want to look at is in your GTM -> profiles -> SSL ->
client & server where server is the one you customers are connecting to
and client is the backend communication ...
If I understand the scenario : you are using a LB that passes through
SSL traffic to the LDAP servers without terminating the SSL sessions
(packets come in from clients, and are sent to the LDAP server of
choice untouched by the LB). In that case you can deploy a cert on all
the LDAP servers with the virtual hostname the client use to make
their connections to the LB. The clients will validate the cert
presented because its hostname matches the one they used to make the
However, note that any LDAP client that needs to make a connection to
a specific server (bypassing the LB) will now see the "wrong" hostname
and hence fail the certificate host name check. (e.g. replication
traffic from other servers).
A wild card host name may be a good solution in this case.
There may be a way to get the LDAP server to present different
certificates depending on the source IP (hence avoiding the need for a
wildcard cert), but I don't remember such a feature existing off the
top of my head.
389 users mailing list