proposal: x/crypto/acme/autocert: Manager should support DNS-01 verification #23198
Comments
|
Who terminates your TLS? What's your setup look like? We're really trying to keep the autocert package simple and move any complexity into the acme package. Generally our answer for people with non-standard setups is to have them use the acme package directly, rather than try to make the autocert package be all things to all people. If we did support dns-01, I'd rather it be automatic. What do your firewall allow in & out? |
|
/cc @x1ddos |
|
A function in Manager(i.e. Depending on the DNS provider the client/developer will provide the appropriate |
|
@winteraz, I'm not asking about solutions. We try to describe & understand the problem before jumping to solutions. Could you answer my questions above? |
|
My server has all incoming traffic restricted to a limited set of IPs so letsencrypt can't access it for the tls-sni challenge verification. The outgoing traffic has no restriction. I used to allow incoming traffic temporarily(as long as it took to set-up the SSL) but this requires manual intervention and defeats the purpose of ACME. |
|
This may not be the most popular setup but firewalls are not that uncommon. The main issue is that Letsencrypt doesn't advertise their IP addresses and they actually forbid whitelist practices. A simple google "Letsencrypt firewall" may prove the issue is quite common and their response is to use dns-01. |
|
It's also worth to note that the upcoming wildcard certificates will be available using only dns-01 We intend to support wildcard certificates in January 2018 as part of the ACMEv2 endpoint. Wildcard issuance will require base domain validation using DNS-01 challenges. |
I actually doubt the changes would be minimal. The tls-sni verification is almost instant, whereas anything DNS related may take hours. It's quite a different flow, i.e. out-of-band. |
|
@x1ddos below are the changes required. I've been using the fork for several days. I still stand by my statement that the changes are minimal. I'm using route53 and the DNS verification is almost instant(i.e. takes few seconds). |
|
Given the "tls-sni-xx" is probably gone for good, "http-01" in #21890 will become the default. Maybe we should reconsider and also add "dns-01" in case something happens to "http-01" too. |
|
Hello, I have been looking into this as well. I agree with @x1ddos that DNS challenge might be too slow for some (might be the most) of the cases, but this recent issue with tls-sni demonstrated that we need to have multiple options as a lot of applications are now helpless. |
|
I think it's a little early to say tls-sni is "probably gone for good", it's going to take a while before anyone knows how this is going to work out. There are active discussions looking at how tls-sni might be fixed. Given the benefits of using SNI, I suspect it's more likely there will be a replacement -- how long it takes is another question. |
|
|
Compatibility will need to be maintained for some period of time, in order to allow for renewals etc., but yeah clearly is it is permanently deprecated from the perspective of new users. |
|
The bottom of that announcement also says:
tls-sni-01/02 won't be back. The announcement and the discussions I linked indicate that people haven't given up on using SNI yet. It's too early to say how it will turn out. |
I have a server on my home network for controlling my lights. Currently it's a simple web form that runs over HTTP with a bare IP address. I'm interested in changing it into a Progressive Web App, which requires serving over HTTPS, hence looking at acme/autocert to facilitate handling fetching/renewing TLS certificates. The server doesn't have a public IP address, so it's not trivial to arrange for it to handle HTTP/HTTPS requests itself. However, it is relatively easy for me to arrange the server to have authorization to modify my Route 53 DNS records. It seems like if I could provide my own challenge responder logic, that would be the easiest way to reuse the rest of autocert's logic. Open to alternative suggestions though. |
|
@mdempsky another way to solve your issue with less work on your end is to use Caddy as a TLS terminating proxy. It supports challenges via Route 53 DNS. |
|
@keegancsmith Thanks for the tip about Caddy. That does seem like a better solution for my use case. I'll look into it. |
|
The learning curve on using the acme package for DNS challenges is pretty high compared to autocert. (e.g there are no examples in the docs). It would be nice to either make it more obvious how to use the acme package for DNS challenges, or make autocert support DNS challenges. I am not really concerned about the time it takes. FYI my use case is a service on kubernetes that provides a GRPC API, but not on port 443. I can't listen on port 80 or 443 as there are other services doing that. |
|
+1. I'm writing a BMC firmware to run on low-powered ARM CPUs that will most likely not have publicly addressable IP addresses. Doing DNS-01 for these devices is what I'm going to implement with or without autocert. I'd be pleased if I don't have to implement the plumbing myself, and I'd rather use the nice Manager interface of autocert. |
|
Autocert supports both It's unclear how to handle We could of course do something like what's proposed in winteraz/crypto@b97c106, adding a clean up function, but it needs implementation for various DNS severs/providers. Maybe hypothetical I'm afraid people will start enabling For the time being, an alternative could be for one to run a separate process, renewing the certs say in recurring cron job, and let devices use them. Here's an example for package main
import (
"context"
"crypto/ecdsa"
"crypto/elliptic"
"crypto/rand"
"crypto/x509"
"log"
"os"
"time"
"golang.org/x/crypto/acme"
)
func main() {
ctx := context.Background()
client := acmeClient(ctx)
// Authorize all domains provided in the cmd line args.
for _, domain := range os.Args[1:] {
authz, err := client.Authorize(ctx, domain)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
if authz.Status == acme.StatusValid {
// Already authorized.
continue
}
// Pick the DNS challenge, if any.
var chal *acme.Challenge
for _, c := range authz.Challenges {
if c.Type == "dns-01" {
chal = c
break
}
}
if chal == nil {
log.Fatalf("no dns-01 challenge for %q", domain)
}
// Fulfill the challenge.
val, err := client.DNS01ChallengeRecord(chal.Token)
if err != nil {
log.Fatalf("dns-01 token for %q: %v", domain, err)
}
// TODO: Implement. This depends on your DNS hosting.
// The function must provision a TXT record containing
// the val value under "_acme-challenge" name.
if err := updateMyDNS(ctx, domain, val); err != nil {
log.Fatalf("DNS update for %q: %v", domain, err)
}
// Let CA know we're ready. But are we? Is DNS propagated yet?
if _, err := client.Accept(ctx, chal); err != nil {
log.Fatalf("dns-01 accept for %q: %v", domain, err)
}
// Wait for the CA to validate.
if _, err := client.WaitAuthorization(ctx, authz.URL); err != nil {
log.Fatalf("authorization for %q failed: %v", domain, err)
}
}
// All authorizations are granted. Request the certificate.
key, err := ecdsa.GenerateKey(elliptic.P256(), rand.Reader)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
req := &x509.CertificateRequest{
DNSNames: os.Args[1:],
}
csr, err := x509.CreateCertificateRequest(rand.Reader, req, key)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
crt, _, err := client.CreateCert(ctx, csr, 90*24*time.Hour, true /* inc. chain */)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
// TODO: Store cert key and crt ether as is, in DER format, or convert to PEM.
}
func newClient(ctx context.Context) *acme.Client {
akey, err := ecdsa.GenerateKey(elliptic.P256(), rand.Reader)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
client := &acme.Client{Key: akey}
if _, err := client.Register(ctx, &acme.Account{}, acme.AcceptTOS); err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
return client
} |
|
Thanks @x1ddos for your input! I'm curious, what do you base the slowness of DNS on? It's certainly true that a lot of DNS providers are slow, but that's not inherent in the system. In my scenario the domain will be owned by the server in question, and it will use a very low TTL time. Likewise the SOA of the domain in question will have a low negative cache TTL. I agree that this will not be a very common setup, but I don't agree saying that DNS will always be slow. Anecdotal evidence on another DNS-01 setup: I'm using cert-manager and DNS validation already for some other things, and it takes about 30 seconds to do the DNS validation and get the certificate. I could probably push that lower if I wanted to as well. |
|
Ah well, your setup with very low TTL time is not that common indeed. :) Another bit I'm thinking about is the challenge order. At the moment, autocert will try Just thinking out loud. Ideas are very welcome. |
|
I had a similar desire and got DNS with Cloudflare as a provider working with autocert's GetCertificate() function. You can have a look at this https://github.com/rsc/letsencrypt/blob/master/lets.go great example for inspiration. It's already using correct library ( Regarding DNS performance: it seems very fast but subsequent requests for different subdomains will likely fail (at least they always fail for me due to a slower cleanup). It's great for wildcards though. |
|
I think it's fine to keep autocert small and opinionated, focused on just TLS-ALPN. That it supports http-01 is really just a historical accident. |
|
I recently tried out autocert, but it turns out to not be viable for us as we run an internal service. If we had split-horizon DNS then that would be be one path to viability, but migrating to that would be a long, risky process. It's not on the horizon [sic]. Using public IP addresses for our services with security groups to allow access only from company networks is also challenging, as it is difficult to identify all the public NAT addresses that are elastically assigned to our VPCs. I don't want to deploy a solution that is likely to generate an ongoing trickle of support tickets to open up access (leaving aside the limitations on the size of security groups). It's been 1.5 years since the last comment. Has any thinking changed on the scope of autocert since then? If nothing is likely to change, then sadly I'll implement a certificate manager which is pluggable, giving users the choice of which authentication method they want to use and the ability to easily add their own. For me, this also ties into other limitations with autocert around safely performing the ACME transaction concurrently across different instances of a web service. See issue #36818 for more information. |
|
So, since this doesn't seem to be going forward, I've written a certificate manager. It supports the dns-01 and http-01 challenge types. I've written plugins for the http-01 challenge and the dns-01 challenge with AWS Route 53. It wouldn't be hard for someone to write a dns-01 challenge responder for another DNS service. Not yet implemented are the plugins for distributing certs+keys and ACME transaction locking, but since the code adds a random jitter for ACME attempts, you can probably get away with running multiple instances with the code as-is. I've already deployed this since it's a huuuge improvement over what we had (no automation, <60 days to go before certificates start expiring). I plan on using AWS Secrets Manager for both distributing certs+keys and for transaction locking when I write a plugin. I may also implement a plugin using A preview of the code is available here: https://github.com/rgooch/golib/tree/certmon-preview/pkg/crypto/certmanager @4n3w: I gather from your thumbs-up that you may be interested in this? |
Hello, I am actually using this. Is there an ACMEv2 example for this specific case available? Kind regards |
|
Regarding DNS propagation: while in theory it can take hours for records to propagate, it often takes less than a minute. For example, AWS Route 53 has a 1 minute SLA. If you create TXT records with a sub-minute TTL, it works pretty well. The approach seems to be: if it doesn't work for everyone, we won't give it to anyone. That's not how I approach things. This is one of the reasons I decided to write my own certificate manager. Since The code I wrote (only) supports ACME v2: https://github.com/rgooch/golib/tree/certmon-preview/pkg/crypto/certmanager |
|
Hey, I extracted the DNS-01 part from here: And it looks like the POC worked with my very first try. Wow, because things became more complicated. I wrote a broker, that enables internal servers to interact with our PowerDNS-Servers. Each server gets a token, that is associated with one fqhn. No server interacts with the PowerDNS-API directly for security reasons. And I also make sure, that all DNS slaves are in sync before starting the handshake with Let's encrypt. It worked smoothly for the last two years. Bye |
|
For whoever is interested, the |
|
Change https://golang.org/cl/381994 mentions this issue: |
|
I realize this issue is rather old but I could really use dns-01 support. The majority of services that I run aren't accessible on the public internet but do have the ability to fulfill DNS challenges. I started a CL (linked above) with my proposal for adding this support to autocert. I've tested it on some real services and it works pretty well. The CL adds a I'd love to see this merged and would be happy to tweak the approach if that's needed. Update: I see that DNS propagation delay is a major topic in the comments above. I have seen in practice over the past ~5 years (using a similar but not as well built client as autocert) that propagation times are generally in the 10-30 second range with occasional spikes up to 2 minutes. I have not seen anything that would exceed the 5 minute timeout in autocert, even accounting for other work that must be done. Although the first request to a service using autocert will be rather slow under worst case propagation delay and a cold cache. I mitigate this by making a pre-flight request to my app before putting it into service to prime the cert cache. My setup today uses an internal service that can authenticate callers and make the DNS update then watches a few public resolvers until it sees the records propagate before returning to the client. The various clients of this service are themselves only reachable on the internal network. |
|
FWIW, I am using @mcrute's fork successfully (thanks!) with DNSimple as my DNS provider. I changed the signature slightly : type DNS01ChallengeSolver func(ctx context.Context, domain string, record string) (cleaner func() error, err error)
type Manager struct {
// DNS01 is used to respond to dns-01 challenges returned from the CA.
// If this field is nil then DNS challenges will not be requested from the
// CA.
DNS01 DNS01ChallengeSolver
}Propagation hasn't been a problem for me either; my solver blocks until |
|
Thanks for the ping @sr; I've totally forgotten to update this issue. I've been running the exact patch as in the CL above in production for the past ~11 months for O(10s) of different services/sites and have found it to be both stable and reliable. So far I've found no use-case that requires revision. @bradfitz are you the right person to comment/merge this or should someone else take a look? I would really like to officially land this if possible. Thanks! Ping @rolandshoemaker and @FiloSottile since you're tagged on the CL as well. Do you see any revisions or additional consensus that needs to occur to merge this? |
|
Well it's been almost a year and no activity on getting this patch merged despite nudges to the maintainers. This patch works well, I've used it for about a year now, but I don't want to carry it in a fork indefinitely. I'm migrating away from autocert to certmagic instead. It does everything I want and extends nicely. |
|
I've been using this patch with success too. @mcrute your certmagic link is broken, guessing you meant https://github.com/caddyserver/certmagic. |
|
Given that this is a working patch that I'm currently using in production systems; I'm still willing to re-open the patch and try to get it merged if there is any interest at all from the upstream maintainers. That being said there does not seem to be any interest in merging this so I'm going to go elsewhere and this patch will eventually bit-rot. |
|
This would introduce significant new functionality, and require an API change, and as such should go through the proposal process. Like @bradfitz says, I think we'd like to keep autocert a very simple package, which is why it is generally designed around the TLS-ALPN challenge. Without a very strong use case, I'm not particularly convinced we should increase the complexity of the package to get this support. As @bradfitz said, and evidenced by some of the alternative solutions proposed in this thread, it is possible to do this with the The DNS-01 challenge introduces a number of complex questions around validation, TTL being one of them. At my previous job (Let's Encrypt), we saw propagation issues as the number one issue when diagnosing DNS challenge failures, so I suspect the support burden to support for the general population for this feature would be higher than expected (while most bigger DNS providers are relatively okay at this, there is a long tail where that is not necessarily the case, especially since at least LE uses multi-viewpoint validation, which is likely to exacerbate propagation issues). |
rolandshoemaker
changed the title
ianlancetaylor
added
the
Proposal-Crypto
|
@rolandshoemaker the TTL issue is in-fact the biggest issue with DNS challenges, in my experience. We've patched over it by having an ACME sub-service in our DNS service that waits for propagation to a few major public servers before returning to the client but I can see how this approach doesn't scale to providers. I read your answer to this question as "no, we will not support this", which is fine, but in that case will you please close this issue to prevent people like myself from wasting energy in trying to support something that will not be supported? |
What did you do?
I've tried to setup autocert behind a firewall.
What did you expect to see?
https working flawlessly (using letsencrypt infrastructure)
What did you see instead?
Verification failed due the firewall.
I believe dns-01 should be built into Manager. It could have a function (i.e. SetTXT) field which if mutated is used by the Manager to set the TXT records required for the DNS verification.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: