838bac037d
* Clarify language around PSS CSR issues Also point out that PKCS#11 tokens have the same problem. Signed-off-by: Alexander Scheel <alex.scheel@hashicorp.com> * Update website/content/docs/secrets/pki/considerations.mdx Co-authored-by: Steven Clark <steven.clark@hashicorp.com> Signed-off-by: Alexander Scheel <alex.scheel@hashicorp.com> Co-authored-by: Steven Clark <steven.clark@hashicorp.com>
632 lines
32 KiB
Plaintext
632 lines
32 KiB
Plaintext
---
|
|
layout: docs
|
|
page_title: 'PKI - Secrets Engines: Considerations'
|
|
description: The PKI secrets engine for Vault generates TLS certificates.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# PKI Secrets Engine - Considerations
|
|
|
|
To successfully deploy this secrets engine, there are a number of important
|
|
considerations to be aware of, as well as some preparatory steps that should be
|
|
undertaken. You should read all of these _before_ using this secrets engine or
|
|
generating the CA to use with this secrets engine.
|
|
|
|
## Table of Contents
|
|
|
|
- [Be Careful with Root CAs](#be-careful-with-root-cas)
|
|
- [Managed Keys](#managed-keys)
|
|
- [One CA Certificate, One Secrets Engine](#one-ca-certificate-one-secrets-engine)
|
|
- [Always Configure a Default Issuer](#always-configure-a-default-issuer)
|
|
- [Key Types Matter](#key-types-matter)
|
|
- [Use a CA Hierarchy](#use-a-ca-hierarchy)
|
|
- [Cross-Signed Intermediates](#cross-signed-intermediates)
|
|
- [Keep certificate lifetimes short, for CRL's sake](#keep-certificate-lifetimes-short-for-crls-sake)
|
|
- [NotAfter Behavior on Leaf Certificates](#notafter-behavior-on-leaf-certificates)
|
|
- [Cluster Performance and Quantity of Leaf Certificates](#cluster-performance-and-quantity-of-leaf-certificates)
|
|
- [You must configure issuing/CRL/OCSP information _in advance_](#you-must-configure-issuingcrlocsp-information-_in-advance_)
|
|
- [Distribution of CRLs and OCSP](#distribution-of-crls-ocsp)
|
|
- [Automate Leaf Certificate Renewal](#automate-leaf-certificate-renewal)
|
|
- [Automate CRL Building and Tidying](#automate-crl-building-and-tidying)
|
|
- [Safe Minimums](#safe-minimums)
|
|
- [Token Lifetimes and Revocation](#token-lifetimes-and-revocation)
|
|
- [Safe Usage of Roles](#safe-usage-of-roles)
|
|
- [Telemetry](#telemetry)
|
|
- [Auditing](#auditing)
|
|
- [Role-Based Access](#role-based-access)
|
|
- [Replicated DataSets](#replicated-datasets)
|
|
- [Cluster Scalability](#cluster-scalability)
|
|
- [PSS Support](#pss-support)
|
|
- [Issuer Subjects and CRLs](#issuer-subjects-and-crls)
|
|
|
|
## Be Careful with Root CAs
|
|
|
|
Vault storage is secure, but not as secure as a piece of paper in a bank vault.
|
|
It is, after all, networked software. If your root CA is hosted outside of
|
|
Vault, don't put it in Vault as well; instead, issue a shorter-lived
|
|
intermediate CA certificate and put this into Vault. This aligns with industry
|
|
best practices.
|
|
|
|
Since 0.4, the secrets engine supports generating self-signed root CAs and
|
|
creating and signing CSRs for intermediate CAs. In each instance, for security
|
|
reasons, the private key can _only_ be exported at generation time, and the
|
|
ability to do so is part of the command path (so it can be put into ACL
|
|
policies).
|
|
|
|
If you plan on using intermediate CAs with Vault, it is suggested that you let
|
|
Vault create CSRs and do not export the private key, then sign those with your
|
|
root CA (which may be a second mount of the `pki` secrets engine).
|
|
|
|
### Managed Keys
|
|
|
|
Since 1.10, Vault Enterprise can access private key material in a
|
|
[_managed key_](/docs/enterprise/managed-keys). In this case, Vault never sees the
|
|
private key, and the external KMS or HSM performs certificate signing operations.
|
|
Managed keys are configured by selecting the `kms` type when generating a root
|
|
or intermediate.
|
|
|
|
## One CA Certificate, One Secrets Engine
|
|
|
|
Since Vault 1.11.0, the PKI Secrets Engine supports multiple issuers in a single
|
|
mount. However, in order to simplify the configuration, it is _strongly_
|
|
recommended that operators limit a mount to a single issuer. If you want to issue
|
|
certificates from multiple disparate CAs, mount the PKI secrets engine at multiple
|
|
mount points with separate CA certificates in each.
|
|
|
|
A common pattern is to have one mount act as your root CA and to use this CA
|
|
only to sign intermediate CA CSRs from other PKI secrets engines.
|
|
|
|
To keep old CAs active, there's two approaches to achieving rotation:
|
|
|
|
1. Use multiple secrets engines. This allows a fresh start, preserving the
|
|
old issuer and CRL. Vault ACL policy can be updated to deny new issuance
|
|
under the old mount point and roles can be re-evaluated before being
|
|
imported into the new mount point.
|
|
2. Use multiple issuers in the same mount point. The usage of the old issuer
|
|
can be restricted to CRL signing, and existing roles and ACL policy can be
|
|
kept as-is. This allows cross-signing within the same mount, and consumers
|
|
of the mount won't have to update their configuration. Once the transitional
|
|
period for this rotation has completed and all past issued certificate have
|
|
expired, it is encouraged to fully remove the old issuer and any unnecessary
|
|
cross-signed issuers from the mount point.
|
|
|
|
Another suggested use case for multiple issuers in the same mount is splitting
|
|
issuance by TTL lifetime. For short-lived certificates, an intermediate
|
|
stored in Vault will often out-perform a HSM-backed intermediate. For
|
|
longer-lived certificates, however, it is often important to have the
|
|
intermediate key material secured throughout the lifetime of the end-entity
|
|
certificate. This means that two intermediates in the same mount -- one backed
|
|
by the HSM and one backed by Vault -- can satisfy both use cases. Operators
|
|
can make roles setting maximum TTLs for each issuer and consumers of the
|
|
mount can decide which to use.
|
|
|
|
### Always Configure a Default Issuer
|
|
|
|
For backwards compatibility, [the default issuer](/api-docs/secret/pki#read-issuers-configuration)
|
|
is used to service PKI endpoints without an explicit issuer (either via path
|
|
selection or role-based selection). When certificates are revoked and their
|
|
issuer is no longer part of this PKI mount, Vault places them on the default
|
|
issuer's CRL. This means maintaining a default issuer is important for both
|
|
backwards compatibility for issuing certificates and for ensuring revoked
|
|
certificates land on a CRL.
|
|
|
|
### Key Types Matter
|
|
|
|
Certain key types have impacts on performance. Signing certificates from a RSA
|
|
key will be slower than issuing from an ECDSA or Ed25519 key. Key generation
|
|
(using `/issue/:role` endpoints) using RSA keys will also be slow: RSA key
|
|
generation involves finding suitable random primes, whereas Ed25519 keys can
|
|
be random data. As the number of bits goes up (RSA 2048 -> 4096 or ECDSA
|
|
P-256 -> P-521), signature times also increases.
|
|
|
|
This matters in both directions: not only is issuance more expensive,
|
|
but validation of the corresponding signature (in say, TLS handshakes) will
|
|
also be more expensive. Careful consideration of both issuer and issued key
|
|
types can have meaningful impacts on performance of not only Vault, but
|
|
systems using these certificates.
|
|
|
|
## Use a CA Hierarchy
|
|
|
|
It is generally recommended to use a hierarchical CA setup, with a root
|
|
certificate which issues one or more intermediates (based on usage), which
|
|
in turn issue the leaf certificates.
|
|
|
|
This allows stronger storage or policy guarantees around [protection of the
|
|
root CA](#be-careful-with-root-cas), while letting Vault manage the
|
|
intermediate CAs and issuance of leaves. Different intermediates might be
|
|
issued for different usage, such as VPN signing, Email signing, or testing
|
|
versus production TLS services. This helps to keep CRLs limited to specific
|
|
purposes: for example, VPN services don't care about the revoked set of
|
|
email signing certificates if they're using separate certificates and
|
|
different intermediates, and thus don't need both CRL contents. Additionally,
|
|
this allows higher risk intermediates (such as those issuing longer-lived
|
|
email signing certificates) to have HSM-backing without impacting the
|
|
performance of easier-to-rotate intermediates and certificates (such as
|
|
TLS intermediates).
|
|
|
|
Vault supports the use of both the [`allowed_domains` parameter on
|
|
Roles](/api-docs/secret/pki#allowed_domains) and the [`permitted_dns_domains`
|
|
parameter to set the Name Constraints extension](/api-docs/secret/pki#permitted_dns_domains)
|
|
on root and intermediate generation. This allows for several layers of
|
|
separation of concerns between TLS-based services.
|
|
|
|
### Cross-Signed Intermediates
|
|
|
|
When cross-signing intermediates from two separate roots, two separate
|
|
intermediate issuers will exist within the Vault PKI mount. In order to
|
|
correctly serve the cross-signed chain on issuance requests, the
|
|
`manual_chain` override is required on either or both intermediates. This
|
|
can be constructed in the following order:
|
|
|
|
- this issuer (`self`)
|
|
- this root
|
|
- the other copy of this intermediate
|
|
- the other root
|
|
|
|
All requests to this issuer for signing will now present the full cross-signed
|
|
chain.
|
|
|
|
## Keep certificate lifetimes short, for CRL's sake
|
|
|
|
This secrets engine aligns with Vault's philosophy of short-lived secrets. As
|
|
such it is not expected that CRLs will grow large; the only place a private key
|
|
is ever returned is to the requesting client (this secrets engine does _not_
|
|
store generated private keys, except for CA certificates). In most cases, if the
|
|
key is lost, the certificate can simply be ignored, as it will expire shortly.
|
|
|
|
If a certificate must truly be revoked, the normal Vault revocation function can
|
|
be used; alternately a root token can be used to revoke the certificate using
|
|
the certificate's serial number. Any revocation action will cause the CRL to be
|
|
regenerated. When the CRL is regenerated, any expired certificates are removed
|
|
from the CRL (and any revoked, expired certificate are removed from secrets
|
|
engine storage). This is an expensive operation! Due to the structure of the
|
|
CRL standard, Vault must read **all** revoked certificates into memory in order
|
|
to rebuild the CRL and clients must fetch the regenerated CRL.
|
|
|
|
This secrets engine does not support multiple CRL endpoints with sliding date
|
|
windows; often such mechanisms will have the transition point a few days apart,
|
|
but this gets into the expected realm of the actual certificate validity periods
|
|
issued from this secrets engine. A good rule of thumb for this secrets engine
|
|
would be to simply not issue certificates with a validity period greater than
|
|
your maximum comfortable CRL lifetime. Alternately, you can control CRL caching
|
|
behavior on the client to ensure that checks happen more often.
|
|
|
|
Often multiple endpoints are used in case a single CRL endpoint is down so that
|
|
clients don't have to figure out what to do with a lack of response. Run Vault
|
|
in HA mode, and the CRL endpoint should be available even if a particular node
|
|
is down.
|
|
|
|
~> Note: Since Vault 1.11.0, with multiple issuers in the same mount point,
|
|
different issuers may have different CRLs (depending on subject and key
|
|
material). This means that Vault may need to regenerate multiple CRLs.
|
|
This is again a rationale for keeping TTLs short and avoiding revocation
|
|
if possible.
|
|
|
|
### NotAfter Behavior on Leaf Certificates
|
|
|
|
In Vault 1.11.0, the PKI Secrets Engine has introduced a new
|
|
`leaf_not_after_behavior` [parameter on
|
|
issuers](/api-docs/secret/pki#leaf_not_after_behavior).
|
|
This allows modification of the issuance behavior: should Vault `err`,
|
|
preventing issuance of a longer-lived leaf cert than issuer, silently
|
|
`truncate` to that of the issuer's `NotAfter` value, or `permit` longer
|
|
expirations.
|
|
|
|
It is strongly suggested to use `err` or `truncate` for intermediates;
|
|
`permit` is only useful for root certificates, as intermediate's NotAfter
|
|
expiration are checked when validating presented chains.
|
|
|
|
In combination with a cascading expiration with longer lived roots (perhaps
|
|
on the range of 2-10 years), shorter lived intermediates (perhaps on the
|
|
range of 6 months to 2 years), and short-lived leaf certificates (on the
|
|
range of 30 to 90 days), and the [rotation strategies discussed in other
|
|
sections](/docs/secrets/pki/rotation-primitives), this should keep the
|
|
CRLs adequately small.
|
|
|
|
### Cluster Performance and Quantity of Leaf Certificates
|
|
|
|
As mentioned above, keeping TTLs short (or using `no_store=true`) and avoiding
|
|
leases is important for a healthy cluster. However it is important to note
|
|
this is a scale problem: 10-1000 long-lived, stored certificates are probably
|
|
fine, but 50k-100k become a problem and 500k+ stored, unexpired certificates
|
|
can negatively impact even large Vault clusters--even with short TTLs!
|
|
|
|
However, once these certificates are expired, a [tidy operation](/api-docs/secret/pki#tidy)
|
|
will clean up CRLs and Vault cluster storage.
|
|
|
|
Note that organizational risk assessments for certificate compromise might
|
|
mean certain certificate types should always be issued with `no_store=false`;
|
|
even short-lived broad wildcard certificates (say, `*.example.com`) might be
|
|
important enough to have precise control over revocation. However, an internal
|
|
service with a well-scoped certificate (say, `service.example.com`) might be
|
|
of low enough risk to issue a 90-day TTL with `no_store=true`, preventing
|
|
the need for revocation in the unlikely case of compromise.
|
|
|
|
Having a shorter TTL decreases the likelihood of needing to revoke a cert
|
|
(but cannot prevent it entirely) and decrease the impact of any such
|
|
compromise.
|
|
|
|
~> Note: As of Vault 1.12, the PKI Secret Engine's [Bring-Your-Own-Cert
|
|
(BYOC)](/api-docs/secret/pki#revoke-certificate)
|
|
functionality allows revocation of certificates not previously stored
|
|
(e.g., issued via a role with `no_store=true`). This means that setting
|
|
`no_store=true` _is now_ safe to be used globally, regardless of importance
|
|
of issued certificates (and their likelihood for revocation).
|
|
|
|
## You must configure issuing/CRL/OCSP information _in advance_
|
|
|
|
This secrets engine serves CRLs from a predictable location, but it is not
|
|
possible for the secrets engine to know where it is running. Therefore, you must
|
|
configure desired URLs for the issuing certificate, CRL distribution points, and
|
|
OCSP servers manually using the `config/urls` endpoint. It is supported to have
|
|
more than one of each of these by passing in the multiple URLs as a
|
|
comma-separated string parameter.
|
|
|
|
~> Note: when using Vault Enterprise's Performance Replication features with a
|
|
PKI Secrets Engine mount, each cluster will have its own CRL; this means
|
|
each cluster's unique CRL address should be included in the [AIA
|
|
information](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5280#section-5.2.7)
|
|
field separately, or the CRLs should be consolidated and served outside of
|
|
Vault.
|
|
|
|
~> Note: When using multiple issuers in the same mount, it is suggested to use
|
|
the per-issuer AIA fields rather than the global (`/config/urls`) variant.
|
|
This is for correctness: these fields are used for chain building and
|
|
automatic CRL detection in certain applications. If they point to the wrong
|
|
issuer's information, these applications may break.
|
|
|
|
## Distribution of CRLs and OCSP
|
|
|
|
Both CRLs and OCSP allow interrogating revocation status of certificates. Both
|
|
of these methods include internal security and authenticity (both CRLs and
|
|
OCSP responses are signed by the issuing CA within Vault). This means both are
|
|
fine to distribute over non-secure and non-authenticated channels, such as
|
|
HTTP.
|
|
|
|
## Automate Leaf Certificate Renewal
|
|
|
|
As much as possible, for managing certificates for services at scale, it is
|
|
best to automate renewal of certificates. Vault agent [has support for
|
|
automatically renewing requested certificates](/docs/agent/template#certificates)
|
|
based on the `validTo` field. Other solutions might involve using
|
|
[cert-manager](https://cert-manager.io/) in Kubernetes or OpenShift, backed
|
|
by the Vault CA.
|
|
|
|
## Automate CRL Building and Tidying
|
|
|
|
Since Vault 1.12, the PKI Secrets Engine supports automated CRL rebuilding
|
|
(including optional Delta CRLs which can be built more frequently than
|
|
complete CRLs) via the `/config/crl` endpoint. Additionally, tidying of
|
|
revoked and expired certificates can be configured automatically via the
|
|
`/config/auto-tidy` endpoint. Both of these should be enabled to ensure
|
|
compatibility with the wider PKIX ecosystem and performance of the cluster.
|
|
|
|
## Safe Minimums
|
|
|
|
Since its inception, this secrets engine has enforced SHA256 for signature
|
|
hashes rather than SHA1. As of 0.5.1, a minimum of 2048 bits for RSA keys is
|
|
also enforced. Software that can handle SHA256 signatures should also be able to
|
|
handle 2048-bit keys, and 1024-bit keys are considered unsafe and are disallowed
|
|
in the Internet PKI.
|
|
|
|
## Token Lifetimes and Revocation
|
|
|
|
When a token expires, it revokes all leases associated with it. This means that
|
|
long-lived CA certs need correspondingly long-lived tokens, something that is
|
|
easy to forget. Starting with 0.6, root and intermediate CA certs no longer have
|
|
associated leases, to prevent unintended revocation when not using a token with
|
|
a long enough lifetime. To revoke these certificates, use the `pki/revoke`
|
|
endpoint.
|
|
|
|
## Safe Usage of Roles
|
|
|
|
The Vault PKI Secrets Engine supports many options to limit issuance via
|
|
[Roles](/api-docs/secret/pki#create-update-role).
|
|
Careful consideration of construction is necessary to ensure that more
|
|
permissions are not given than necessary. Additionally, roles should generally
|
|
do _one_ thing; multiple roles should be preferable over having too permissive
|
|
roles that allow arbitrary issuance (e.g., `allow_any_name` should generally
|
|
be used sparingly, if at all).
|
|
|
|
- `allow_any_name` should generally be set to `false`; this is the default.
|
|
- `allow_localhost` should generally be set to `false` for production
|
|
services, unless listening on `localhost` is expected.
|
|
- Unless necessary, `allow_wildcard_certificates` should generally be set to
|
|
`false`. This is **not** the default due to backwards compatibility
|
|
concerns.
|
|
- This is especially necessary when `allow_subdomains` or `allow_glob_domains`
|
|
are enabled.
|
|
- `enforce_hostnames` should generally be enabled for TLS services; this is
|
|
the default.
|
|
- `allow_ip_sans` should generally be set to `false` (but defaults to `true`),
|
|
unless IP address certificates are explicitly required.
|
|
- When using short TTLs (< 30 days) or with high issuance volume, it is
|
|
generally recommend to set `no_store` to `true` (defaults to `false`).
|
|
This prevents revocation but allows higher throughput as Vault no longer
|
|
needs to store every issued certificate. This is discussed more in the
|
|
[Replicated Datasets](#replicated-datasets) section below.
|
|
- Do not use roles with root certificates (`issuer_ref`). Root certificates
|
|
should generally only issue intermediates (see the section on [CA hierarchy
|
|
above](#use-a-ca-hierarchy)), which doesn't rely on roles.
|
|
- Limit `key_usage` and `ext_key_usage`; don't attempt to allow all usages
|
|
for all purposes. Generally the default values are useful for client and
|
|
server TLS authentication.
|
|
|
|
## Telemetry
|
|
|
|
Beyond Vault's default telemetry around request processing, PKI exposes count and
|
|
duration metrics for the issue, sign, sign-verbatim, and revoke calls. The
|
|
metrics keys take the form `mount-path,operation,[failure]` with labels for
|
|
namespace and role name.
|
|
|
|
Note that these metrics are per-node and thus would need to be aggregated across
|
|
nodes and clusters.
|
|
|
|
## Auditing
|
|
|
|
Because Vault HMACs audit string keys by default, it is necessary to tune
|
|
PKI secrets mounts to get an accurate view of issuance that is occurring under
|
|
this mount.
|
|
|
|
Some suggested keys to un-HMAC for requests are as follows:
|
|
|
|
- `csr` - the requested CSR to sign,
|
|
- `certificate` - the requested self-signed certificate to re-sign or
|
|
when importing issuers,
|
|
- Various issuance-related overriding parameters, such as:
|
|
- `issuer_ref` - the issuer requested to sign this certificate,
|
|
- `common_name` - the requested common name,
|
|
- `alt_names` - alternative requested DNS-type SANs for this certificate,
|
|
- `other_sans` - other (non-DNS, non-Email, non-IP, non-URI) requested SANs for this certificate,
|
|
- `ip_sans` - requested IP-type SANs for this certificate,
|
|
- `uri_sans` - requested URI-type SANs for this certificate,
|
|
- `ttl` - requested expiration date of this certificate,
|
|
- `not_after` - requested expiration date of this certificate,
|
|
- `serial_number` - the subject's requested serial number,
|
|
- `key_type` - the requested key type,
|
|
- `private_key_format` - the requested key format which is also
|
|
used for the public certificate format as well,
|
|
- Various role- or issuer-related generation parameters, such as:
|
|
- `managed_key_name` - when creating an issuer, the requested managed
|
|
key name,
|
|
- `managed_key_id` - when creating an issuer, the requested managed
|
|
key identifier,
|
|
- `ou` - the subject's organizational unit,
|
|
- `organization` - the subject's organization,
|
|
- `country` - the subject's country code,
|
|
- `locality` - the subject's locality,
|
|
- `province` - the subject's province,
|
|
- `street_address` - the subject's street address,
|
|
- `postal_code` - the subject's postal code,
|
|
- `permitted_dns_domains` - permitted DNS domains,
|
|
- `policy_identifiers` - the requested policy identifiers when creating a role, and
|
|
- `ext_key_usage_oids` - the extended key usage OIDs for the requested certificate.
|
|
|
|
Some suggested keys to un-HMAC for responses are as follows:
|
|
|
|
- `certificate` - the certificate that was issued,
|
|
- `issuing_ca` - the certificate of the CA which issued the requested
|
|
certificate,
|
|
- `serial_number` - the serial number of the certificate that was issued,
|
|
- `error` - to show errors associated with the request, and
|
|
- `ca_chain` - optional due to noise; the full CA chain of the issuer of
|
|
the requested certificate.
|
|
|
|
~> Note: These list of parameters to un-HMAC are provided as a suggestion and
|
|
may not be exhaustive.
|
|
|
|
The following keys are suggested **NOT** to un-HMAC, due to their sensitive
|
|
nature:
|
|
|
|
- `private_key` - this response parameter contains the private keys
|
|
generated by Vault during issuance, and
|
|
- `pem_bundle` this request parameter is only used on the issuer-import
|
|
paths and may contain sensitive private key material.
|
|
|
|
## Role-Based Access
|
|
|
|
Vault supports [path-based ACL Policies](https://learn.hashicorp.com/tutorials/vault/getting-started-policies)
|
|
for limiting access to various paths within Vault.
|
|
|
|
The following is a condensed example reference of ACLing the PKI Secrets
|
|
Engine. These are just a suggestion; other personas and policy approaches
|
|
may also be valid.
|
|
|
|
We suggest the following personas:
|
|
|
|
- *Operator*; a privileged user who manages the health of the PKI
|
|
subsystem; manages issuers and key material.
|
|
- *Agent*; a semi-privileged user that manages roles and handles
|
|
revocation on behalf of an operator; may also handle delegated
|
|
issuance. This may also be called an *administrator* or *role
|
|
manager*.
|
|
- *Advanced*; potentially a power-user or service that has access to
|
|
additional issuance APIs.
|
|
- *Requester*; a low-level user or service that simply requests certificates.
|
|
- *Unauthed*; any arbitrary user or service that lacks a Vault token.
|
|
|
|
For these personas, we suggest the following ACLs, in condensed, tabular form:
|
|
|
|
| Path | Operations | Operator | Agent | Advanced | Requester | Unauthed |
|
|
| :--- | :--------- | :------- | :---- | :------- | :-------- | :------- |
|
|
| `/ca(/pem)?` | Read | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| `/ca_chain` | Read | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| `/crl(/pem)?` | Read | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| `/crl/delta(/pem)?` | Read | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| `/cert/:serial(/raw(/pem)?)?` | Read | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| `/issuers` | List | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| `/issuer/:issuer_ref/(json¦der¦pem)` | Read | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| `/issuer/:issuer_ref/crl(/der¦/pem)?` | Read | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| `/issuer/:issuer_ref/crl/delta(/der¦/pem)?` | Read | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| `/ocsp/<request>` | Read | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| `/ocsp` | Write | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| `/certs` | List | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
|
|
| `/revoke-with-key` | Write | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
|
|
| `/roles` | List | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
|
|
| `/roles/:role` | Read | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
|
|
| `/(issue¦sign)/:role` | Write | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
|
|
| `/issuer/:issuer_ref/(issue¦sign)/:role` | Write | Yes | Yes | Yes | | |
|
|
| `/config/auto-tidy` | Read | Yes | Yes | | | |
|
|
| `/config/ca` | Read | Yes | Yes | | | |
|
|
| `/config/crl` | Read | Yes | Yes | | | |
|
|
| `/config/issuers` | Read | Yes | Yes | | | |
|
|
| `/crl/rotate` | Read | Yes | Yes | | | |
|
|
| `/crl/rotate-delta` | Read | Yes | Yes | | | |
|
|
| `/roles/:role` | Write | Yes | Yes | | | |
|
|
| `/issuer/:issuer_ref` | Read | Yes | Yes | | | |
|
|
| `/sign-verbatim(/:role)?` | Write | Yes | Yes | | | |
|
|
| `/issuer/:issuer_ref/sign-verbatim(/:role)?` | Write | Yes | Yes | | | |
|
|
| `/revoke` | Write | Yes | Yes | | | |
|
|
| `/tidy` | Write | Yes | Yes | | | |
|
|
| `/tidy-cancel` | Write | Yes | Yes | | | |
|
|
| `/tidy-status` | Read | Yes | Yes | | | |
|
|
| `/config/auto-tidy` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/config/ca` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/config/crl` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/config/issuers` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/config/keys` | Read, Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/config/urls` | Read, Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/issuer/:issuer_ref` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/issuer/:issuer_ref/revoke` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/issuer/:issuer_ref/sign-intermediate` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/issuer/issuer_ref/sign-self-issued` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/issuers/generate/+/+` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/issuers/import/+` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/intermediate/generate/+` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/intermediate/cross-sign` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/intermediate/set-signed` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/keys` | List | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/key/:key_ref` | Read, Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/keys/generate/+` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/keys/import` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/root/generate/+` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/root/sign-intermediate` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/root/sign-self-issued` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/root/rotate/+` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
| `/root/replace` | Write | Yes | | | | |
|
|
|
|
~> Note: With managed keys, operators might need access to [read the mount
|
|
point's tunable data](/api-docs/system/mounts) (Read on `/sys/mounts`) and
|
|
may need access [to use or manage managed keys](/api-docs/system/managed-keys).
|
|
|
|
## Replicated DataSets
|
|
|
|
When operating with [Performance Secondary](/docs/enterprise/replication#architecture)
|
|
clusters, certain data-sets are maintained across all clusters, while others for performance
|
|
and scalability reasons are kept within a given cluster.
|
|
|
|
The following table breaks down by data type what data sets will cross the cluster boundaries.
|
|
For data-types that do not cross a cluster boundary, read requests for that data will need to be
|
|
sent to the appropriate cluster that the data was generated on.
|
|
|
|
| Data Set | Replicated Across Clusters |
|
|
|--------------------------|----------------------------|
|
|
| Issuers & Keys | Yes |
|
|
| Roles | Yes |
|
|
| CRL Config | Yes |
|
|
| URL Config | Yes |
|
|
| Issuer Config | Yes |
|
|
| Key Config | Yes |
|
|
| CRL | No |
|
|
| Revoked Certificates | No |
|
|
| Leaf/Issued Certificates | No |
|
|
|
|
The main effect is that within the PKI secrets engine leaf certificates
|
|
issued with `no_store` set to `false` are stored local to the cluster that issued them.
|
|
This allows for both primary and [Performance Secondary](/docs/enterprise/replication#architecture)
|
|
clusters' active node to issue certificates for greater scalability. As a
|
|
result, these certificates and any revocations are visible only on the issuing
|
|
cluster. This additionally means each cluster has its own set of CRLs, distinct
|
|
from other clusters. These CRLs should either be unified into a single CRL for
|
|
distribution from a single URI, or server operators should know to fetch all
|
|
CRLs from all clusters.
|
|
|
|
## Cluster Scalability
|
|
|
|
Most non-introspection operations in the PKI secrets engine require a write to
|
|
storage, and so are forwarded to the cluster's active node for execution.
|
|
This table outlines which operations can be executed on performance standby nodes
|
|
and thus scale horizontally across all nodes within a cluster.
|
|
|
|
| Path | Operations |
|
|
|-------------------------------|----------------------|
|
|
| ca[/pem] | Read |
|
|
| cert/<em>serial-number</em> | Read |
|
|
| cert/ca_chain | Read |
|
|
| config/crl | Read |
|
|
| certs | List |
|
|
| ca_chain | Read |
|
|
| crl[/pem] | Read |
|
|
| issue | Update <sup>\*</sup> |
|
|
| revoke/<em>serial-number</em> | Read |
|
|
| sign | Update <sup>\*</sup> |
|
|
| sign-verbatim | Update <sup>\*</sup> |
|
|
|
|
\* Only if the corresponding role has `no_store` set to true and `generate_lease`
|
|
set to false. If `generate_lease` is true the lease creation will be forwarded to
|
|
the active node; if `no_store` is false the entire request will be forwarded to
|
|
the active node.
|
|
|
|
## PSS Support
|
|
|
|
Go lacks support for PSS certificates, keys, and CSRs using the `rsaPSS` OID
|
|
(`1.2.840.113549.1.1.10`). It requires all RSA certificates, keys, and CSRs
|
|
to use the alternative `rsaEncryption` OID (`1.2.840.113549.1.1.1`).
|
|
|
|
When using OpenSSL to generate CAs or CSRs from PKCS8-encoded PSS keys, the
|
|
resulting CAs and CSRs will have the `rsaPSS` OID. Go and Vault will reject
|
|
them. Instead, use OpenSSL to generate or convert to a PKCS#1v1.5 private
|
|
key file and use this to generate the CSR. Vault will, depending on the role
|
|
and the signing mechanism, still use a PSS signature despite the
|
|
`rsaEncryption` OID on the request as the SubjectPublicKeyInfo and
|
|
SignatureAlgorithm fields are orthogonal. When creating an external CA and
|
|
importing it into Vault, ensure that the `rsaEncryption` OID is present on
|
|
the SubjectPublicKeyInfo field even if the SignatureAlgorithm is PSS-based.
|
|
|
|
These certificates generated by Go (with `rsaEncryption` OID but PSS-based
|
|
signatures) are otherwise compatible with the fully PSS-based certificates.
|
|
OpenSSL and NSS support parsing and verifying chains using this type of
|
|
certificate. Note that some TLS implementations may not support these types
|
|
of certificates if they do not support `rsa_pss_rsae_*` signature schemes.
|
|
Additionally, some implementations allow rsaPSS OID certificates to contain
|
|
restrictions on signature parameters allowed by this certificate, but Go and
|
|
Vault do not support adding such restrictions.
|
|
|
|
At this time Go lacks support for signing CSRs with the PSS signature
|
|
algorithm. If using a managed key that requires a RSA PSS algorithm (such as GCP or
|
|
a PKCS#11 HSM) as a backing for an intermediate CA key, attempting to generate
|
|
a CSR (via `pki/intermediate/generate/kms`) will fail signature verification.
|
|
In this case, the CSR will need to be generated outside of Vault and the
|
|
signed final certificate can be imported into the mount.
|
|
|
|
Go additionally lacks support for creating OCSP responses with the PSS
|
|
signature algorithm. Vault will automatically downgrade issuers with
|
|
PSS-based revocation signature algorithms to PKCS#1v1.5, but note that
|
|
certain KMS devices (like HSMs and GCP) may not support this with the
|
|
same key. As a result, the OCSP responder may fail to sign responses,
|
|
returning an internal error.
|
|
|
|
## Issuer Subjects and CRLs
|
|
|
|
As noted on several [GitHub issues](https://github.com/hashicorp/vault/issues/10176),
|
|
Go's x509 library has an opinionated parsing and structuring mechanism for
|
|
certificate's Subjects. Issuers created within Vault are fine, but when using
|
|
externally created CA certificates, note that these may not be parsed
|
|
correctly throughout all parts of the PKI. In particular, CRLs embed a
|
|
(modified) copy of the issuer name. This can be avoided by using OCSP to
|
|
track revocation, but note that performance characteristics are different
|
|
between OCSP and CRLs.
|
|
|
|
## Tutorial
|
|
|
|
Refer to the [Build Your Own Certificate Authority (CA)](https://learn.hashicorp.com/vault/secrets-management/sm-pki-engine)
|
|
guide for a step-by-step tutorial.
|
|
|
|
Have a look at the [PKI Secrets Engine with Managed Keys](https://learn.hashicorp.com/tutorials/vault/managed-key-pki?in=vault/enterprise)
|
|
for more about how to use externally managed keys with PKI.
|
|
|
|
## API
|
|
|
|
The PKI secrets engine has a full HTTP API. Please see the
|
|
[PKI secrets engine API](/api-docs/secret/pki) for more
|
|
details.
|