Re: new certbot patch

Russell Coker <[email protected]> writes:

> On Thursday, 9 April 2020 11:23:00 PM AEST Chris PeBenito wrote:
>> > +miscfiles_read_generic_certs(certbot_t)
>> > +miscfiles_manage_generic_tls_privkey_dirs(certbot_t)
>> > +miscfiles_manage_generic_tls_privkey_files(certbot_t)
>> > +miscfiles_manage_generic_tls_privkey_lnk_files(certbot_t)
>> 
>> Perhaps we should be moving towards having a specific label for these
>> private keys instead.  It seems logical that there would be multiple types
>> of private keys.  Then have a miscfiles_private_key() to declare one and
>> have the type in this module to act on directly.
>
> Certbot isn't written to support different runs on the same system.  It might 
> be worth filing an upstream feature request for that as it would be a useful 
> feature.
>
> As for SE Linux policy to support multiple separate private SSL keys on the 
> same system, it seems that there would be many variations on that and trying 
> to write generic policy wouldn't be viable.  Maybe a better solution would be 
> to support different MCS categories for different daemons and then different 
> categories for private keys.  Then the sysadmin would have full control over 
> which daemons could access which private keys.

A more practical approach here in my experience is to not give access to
certs in /etc/letsencrypt but let the hook functionality copy the certs
from the store and then address labeling with "cert_type()" in the
accessible location. Not ideal either but the way letsencrypt maintains its
certs in /etc/letsencrypt is not very usable either.

Eventually one might end up altering/combining the certs anyway's. For
example znc seems to require that you enclose the privkey with the chain.

-- 
gpg --locate-keys [email protected]
Key fingerprint = FCD2 3660 5D6B 9D27 7FC6  E0FF DA7E 521F 10F6 4098
https://sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xDA7E521F10F64098
Dominick Grift