RE: Best Practices for private key files handling

2022-09-18 Thread Michael Wojcik via openssl-users
> From: openssl-users On Behalf Of Michael > Ströder via openssl-users > Sent: Sunday, 18 September, 2022 04:27 > > On 9/18/22 06:09, Philip Prindeville wrote: > >> On Sep 15, 2022, at 4:27 PM, Michael Wojcik via openssl-users us...@openssl.org> wrote: > >> You still haven't explained your

Re: Best Practices for private key files handling

2022-09-18 Thread Michael Ströder via openssl-users
On 9/18/22 06:09, Philip Prindeville wrote: On Sep 15, 2022, at 4:27 PM, Michael Wojcik via openssl-users wrote: You still haven't explained your threat model, or what mitigation the application can take if this requirement is violated, or why you think this is a "best practice". > The threat

Re: Best Practices for private key files handling

2022-09-17 Thread Philip Prindeville
> On Sep 15, 2022, at 4:27 PM, Michael Wojcik via openssl-users > wrote: > >> From: openssl-users On Behalf Of Philip >> Prindeville >> Sent: Thursday, 15 September, 2022 15:41 > >> I was thinking of the case where the directory containing the keys (as >> configured) is correctly owned, but

RE: Best Practices for private key files handling

2022-09-15 Thread Michael Wojcik via openssl-users
> From: openssl-users On Behalf Of Philip > Prindeville > Sent: Thursday, 15 September, 2022 15:41 > I was thinking of the case where the directory containing the keys (as > configured) is correctly owned, but contains a symlink pointing outside of > that directory somewhere else... say to a

Re: Best Practices for private key files handling

2022-09-15 Thread Carson Gaspar
On 9/15/2022 3:15 PM, Shawn Heisey via openssl-users wrote: If symlinks are used responsibly, they won't have security risks. In general, if the program checks the ownership and permissions of the actual file before using it, it shouldn't matter whether there is a symlink or not. As long

Re: Best Practices for private key files handling

2022-09-15 Thread Shawn Heisey via openssl-users
On 9/15/22 15:40, Philip Prindeville wrote: I was thinking of the case where the directory containing the keys (as configured) is correctly owned, but contains a symlink pointing outside of that directory somewhere else... say to a file owned by an ordinary user. In that case, as has been

Re: Best Practices for private key files handling

2022-09-15 Thread Philip Prindeville
> On Sep 13, 2022, at 8:10 PM, Shawn Heisey via openssl-users > wrote: > > On 9/13/22 14:17, Philip Prindeville wrote: >> But what happens when the file we encounter is a symlink? If the symlink is >> owned by root but the target isn't, or the target permissions aren't 0600 0r >> 0400...

Re: Best Practices for private key files handling

2022-09-13 Thread Shawn Heisey via openssl-users
On 9/13/22 14:17, Philip Prindeville wrote: But what happens when the file we encounter is a symlink? If the symlink is owned by root but the target isn't, or the target permissions aren't 0600 0r 0400... Or the target is a symlink, or there's a symlink somewhere in the target path, etc.

RE: Best Practices for private key files handling

2022-09-13 Thread Michael Wojcik via openssl-users
> From: openssl-users On Behalf Of Philip > Prindeville > Sent: Tuesday, 13 September, 2022 14:17 > > I'm working on a bug in an application where the application config is given > the directory path in which to find a key-store, which it then loads. > > My issue is this: a regular UNIX file is

Best Practices for private key files handling

2022-09-13 Thread Philip Prindeville
Hi, I'm working on a bug in an application where the application config is given the directory path in which to find a key-store, which it then loads. My issue is this: a regular UNIX file is trivial to handle (make sure it's owned by "root" or the uid that the app runs at, and that it's 0600