Just dropping a couple of comments/questions here:
1) Does IETF also require use of TLS for communications inside one host
(over localhost)?
2) Would a solution for two separate hosts be acceptable, where two
TLS-Shims are started:
* one listens on the NUT server's network interface(s) and passes
unencrypted packets to upsd on localhost (or via pipe) and replies back to
the net,
* another runs on client connecting to the NUT server, and the unmodified
NUT clients connect to it on localhost (or via pipe) with the plaintext NUT
protocol?
This would be similar to use of stunnel (or maybe would just use stunnel if
tested and deemed acceptable) to connect plaintext sides of the dialog
using a secure channel.
3) In any case, having some solution for certificates is good, although
people bothering about that (and a need to update the trust as these
expire) might opt for a private CA and would trust its longer-lived cert
instead - openssl, directly or wrapped in openvpn's EasyRSA scripts, makes
that approach manageable too. Corporate users probably have a domain CA as
well. Alternately, there is Let's Encrypt, at least for public domains...
Thanks for handling this and proposing practical solutions!
Jim Klimov
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 12:29 AM Roger Price <roger at rogerprice.org>
wrote:
> When writing the Internet-Draft (I-D) "UPS Management Protocol"
[1], I was
> required by IETF rules to include a "Security Considerations"
chapter.
> This
> meant saying clearly that the SSL provisions in NUT for secure
> communication are
> now outdated and deprecated.
>
> The IETF now insists on secure communication and this makes NUT's
> situation an
> issue for the project.
>
> In order to encourage discussion of this issue I would like to propose an
> alternative to further work on upsd and the clients. I now have a working
> demonstration at https://github.com/networkupstools/TLS-Shims [2] of the
> TLS
> solution described in the I-D, and based on this demonstration, I would
> like to
> propose:
>
> 1. That NUT separate TLS support from the upsd and client daemons. The
> advantage is that updates to TLS will not require modification of upsd or
> client
> code.
>
> 2. That since generation of server and client certificates is now becoming
> increasingly complicated, NUT provides a script which will produce a
> self-signed
> pair of certificates suitable for NUT server and clients. An example
> of such a script is included in the NUT TLS-Shims repository.
>
> The demonstration scripts are written in a simple Python3. They are not
> object
> oriented. I recognize that use of Python introduces an additional
> language
> constraint into the project, but the large user base of Python means that
> support will be available, and that interfaces such as Python/OpenSSL will
> remain up-to-date. In early versions of NUT the C code was crafted not to
> generate undue cpu load, but now, processors are more than able to process
> the
> same function in Python.
>
> The scripts are thoroughly documented in a new Part 2 to the Configuration
> Examples version 2.0. In addition to Python's own error messages which
> are
> well done, the option -D provides detailed debugging output.
>
> The alternative to separating the TLS support is either abandoning
> security, or
> having to maintain it inside NUT, with more frequent releases needed to
> keep up
> with the rapid evolution of encryption.
>
> Roger
>
> [1]
>
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rprice-ups-management-protocol-03.html
> [2] Many thanks to Jim for the git wizardry which made this possible.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nut-upsdev mailing list
> Nut-upsdev at alioth-lists.debian.net
> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsdev/attachments/20210525/e9aa65f8/attachment.htm>