Bug 2739 - smart card PKI/X.509 authentication
: smart card PKI/X.509 authentication
: ThinLinc
Smart card
: pre-1.0
: PC All
: P2 Enhancement
: MediumPrio
Assigned To:
: 3183
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-03-26 09:23 by
Modified: 2019-02-28 09:39 (History)
Acceptance Criteria:



You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description From cendio 2008-03-26 09:23:14
Currently we do smart card authentication using SSH's normal public key
authentication, but keeping the private key on the smart card. This is not how
smart cards are meant to be used as it completely ignores the certificate.

The "correct" way is to use a PKI scheme. In that scheme, the client sends over
the certificate instead of the user name and authenticates by proving it has
the matching private key (i.e. the same way SSH's public key auth. works). The
server must then figure out which user the certificate maps to, and that the
certificate is valid for this server.

The validity is done by verifying the issuer (CA) signature on the certificate.
The server must have a list of issuer keys it trusts. It usually also checks
with some central database that the certificate hasn't been revoked.

Mapping to a user is implementation defined. Microsoft requires the certificate
to include the user name, and Novell stores the mapping in eDirectory.

OpenSSH doesn't currently have any support for PKI. There is a hackish patch
floating around, but it is very crude and doesn't use public interfaces like
PKCS#11, so it is not suited for our needs. We would most likely have to
implement everything ourselves.

To aid us, Mozilla's NSS library contains all the certificate handling we need.
It can check signatures, revocation lists and all such menial tasks. There is
also a draft RFC for how the PKI handshake should be done over SSH. It is an
expired draft, but it is still better than inventing something new ourselves.
------- Comment #1 From cendio 2008-07-15 16:28:37 -------
http://roumenpetrov.info/openssh/ might be useful. 
------- Comment #2 From cendio 2009-09-09 11:28:36 -------
Time est. is just a wild guess. This project has too many unknowns to make a
proper estimate.

We also need to replace Putty with OpenSSH as it would be really wasteful
making this gigantic effort on both implementations.
------- Comment #3 From cendio 2010-10-29 14:23:09 -------
This effort has now been resurrected at the IETF and it seems to be very close
to be properly standardised:

------- Comment #4 From cendio 2011-08-15 16:43:49 -------
It's now a formal RFC!

------- Comment #5 From cendio 2012-10-18 13:29:56 -------
Somewhat related, red hat is pushing a patch to be able to put authorized_keys
in more dynamic places: