On 18.10.2016 07:34, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 17.10.2016 16:50, Rob Crittenden wrote:
> Jan Cholasta wrote:
>> On 13.10.2016 18:52, Sumit Bose wrote:
>>> ===== Issuer specific matching =====
>>> Although the MIT Kerberos rules allow to select the issuer of a
>>> certificate there are use cases where a more specific selection is
>>> needed. E.g. if there are some default matching rules for all issuers
>>> and some other issuer specific rules where the default rules should
>>> not apply. To make this possible with the above scheme the default
>>> rules must have an <ISSUER> clause which matches all but the issuer
>>> with the specific rules. Writing regular-expressions to not match a
>>> specific string or a list of strings is at least error-prone if not
>>> To make it easier to define issuer specific rules and default rules at
>>> the same time and optional issuer string can be added to the rule to
>>> indicate that for the given issuer only those rules should be
>>> considered. Given the use-case I think it is acceptable to require
>>> that the full issuer must be specified here in LDAP order (see below)
>>> and case-sensitive matching is used.
>> This could also be solved by adding priority to rules - if two rules
>> match, the one with higher priority (the issuer specific rule) is
>> preferred over the one with lower priority (the default rule). IMO this
>> is better than an optional issuer string as it offers greater
> The use cases I've seen haven't had to do with priority, though that
> would be a nice enhancement, but with only allowing certificates issued
> by a specific CA to be allowed (this is pretty common in web servers).
> Being able to say "only do the matching on certificates issued by foo"
> is valuable.
Sure, I'm not suggesting that matching by issuer should be removed, only
that rule precedence should not be determined by the issuer field setting.
Bump. Sumit, what is your opinion on this?