[wildfly-dev] HTTP/2 out of the box in Wildfly 10.1
Darran Lofthouse
darran.lofthouse at jboss.com
Wed Jun 8 06:23:02 EDT 2016
On 07/06/16 21:51, Jason Greene wrote:
> So after reviewing this thread and discussing with a few folks, I’d like
> to propose, for 10.1:
>
> #1b - Same as the previous #1, we don’t enable TLS for management by
> default for now, but we additionally include an extra cli script to
> enable TLS.
>
> For 11 I think we should move to TLS by default, perhaps with a
> configurable URL policy on redirects, and address the incongruence with
> upgrade over app.
>
> I think its likely reasonable to redirect by default for 11, but we can
> hash that out further. One nice thing I had forgotten about is that the
> JDK will prompt for you to add unknown certs, and this all works with
> the CLI[1]. So it’s really only non-interactive clients we have to worry
> about, and that sounds like a reasonable burden for upgrade.
>
> [1]
That is not the JDK, that is the code I worked on to create a more
intuitive user experience when the CLI encounters an unexpected
certificate ;-)
>
> [disconnected /] connect
> Unable to connect due to unrecognised server certificate
> Subject - CN=foo,OU=foo,L=Madison,ST=WI,C=US
> Issuer - CN=myServer, OU=test, L=Madison, ST=WI, C=US
> Valid From - Tue Jun 07 15:22:06 CDT 2016
> Valid To - Thu Jun 07 15:22:06 CDT 2018
> MD5 : cd:68:be:0b:e0:c0:1c:63:d5:2a:85:c8:d1:9d:e7:7d
> SHA1 : ae:f8:35:fd:09:c9:b3:08:05:59:a6:40:5e:ac:6e:e8:ce:85:72:4b
>
> Accept certificate? [N]o, [T]emporarily, [P]ermenantly : t
>
>
>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 6:24 AM, Jason T. Greene <jason.greene at redhat.com
>> <mailto:jason.greene at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Long term I think we want management using TLS, but that can of course
>> come in phases. Assuming 2) is one of those phases to come (either now
>> or later), a following step is that the CLI, and really any remoting
>> client, should prefer TLS with a defaulted trust store location that
>> points to the keystore.
>>
>> With 2) if we have the default of the attribute that forces redirect
>> be true, and our default config be false, then someone that carries
>> over their old config would not have a potential security weakness. If
>> they have a CLI script that adds the https port, it will fail,
>> hopefully sending a signal to look. Although, the user might just
>> assume that oh it's there, I don't have to do anything.
>>
>> Another interesting thing about 2 is that IIRC we have conflicting
>> behavior between the app port which doesn't force upgrade and the
>> management port which does.
>>
>> So my preference is 2, because at some point we have to do it anyway,
>> and if we have TLS out of the box might as well use it.
>>
>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 10:48 PM, Stuart Douglas
>> <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com <mailto:stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> So while implementing this I have noticed a potential problem that it
>>> would be good to get some feedback on.
>>>
>>> If the management interface has SSL by default then the HTTP
>>> interface will always redirect to the HTTPS interface. This
>>> effectively breaks the management API, as clients such as the CLI,
>>> Arquillian etc will be redirected to HTTPS, and then reject the self
>>> signed certificate (as they should).
>>>
>>> I am not sure what to do about this, these are the options as I see them:
>>>
>>> 1) Don't enable SSL for the management interface (just for the
>>> Undertow subsystem). The management interface can still use this
>>> auto-generation capability, it just won't be enable by default (we
>>> could even leave the cert in the security domain, but just not enable
>>> the https interface).
>>>
>>> 2) Disable automatic redirects for HTTP upgrade requests (potentially
>>> controlled by an attribute). This will allow the CLI etc to work, but
>>> at the price of potentially reducing security, as some connections
>>> that would have previously been redirected to use HTTPS will no
>>> longer do this.
>>>
>>> 3) Enable it by default and leave it broken. We can setup some kind
>>> of automatic trust store thing so the local CLI works, and can get
>>> our test suite to work with Arquillian in a similar manner.
>>> Personally I think this is a terrible idea, but I am including it for
>>> completeness.
>>>
>>> Personally I think we should go for 1). Given that this is supposed
>>> to be about developer usability I don't think having management also
>>> use SSL as being that important.
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Jason T. Greene
>>> <jason.greene at redhat.com <mailto:jason.greene at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Awesome! Another idea I had on how we could get away with it
>>> being in server boot, is to have a pre-boot first time setup
>>> task, either launched from the shell/batch scripts or as a
>>> special pre-step before the AS module loads. We could then report
>>> boot time as the time AFTER first time installation tasks have
>>> completed, which I think is fair because the server hasn't yet
>>> been started.
>>>
>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 11:53 PM, Stuart Douglas
>>> <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com <mailto:stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have some initial work on this at:
>>>> https://github.com/stuartwdouglas/wildfly-core/tree/WFCORE-1576
>>>>
>>>> If you go to https://localhost:9993 <https://localhost:9993/> it
>>>> will generate the certificate (although all that will be served
>>>> is a 404 page as the console is not installed).
>>>>
>>>> Stuart
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Stuart Douglas
>>>> <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com <mailto:stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think that would actually end up being more complex.
>>>>
>>>> Stuart
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Jason T. Greene
>>>> <jason.greene at redhat.com <mailto:jason.greene at redhat.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Another option could be a post boot task. So it's still
>>>> eager but don't block completed start. We'd still need
>>>> to block Tls ports though. So maybe this does not help
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 9:31 PM, Stuart Douglas
>>>> <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2048 bits adds close to a second to first boot on my
>>>>> machine (obviously subsequent boots are unaffected).
>>>>>
>>>>> This is probably a bit much, I will work on getting a
>>>>> POC for the lazy loading approach implemented.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Jason T. Greene
>>>>> <jason.greene at redhat.com
>>>>> <mailto:jason.greene at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We should really be generating 2048 bit keys.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't like adding to our boot time, we have
>>>>> already seen it grow and this would be yet another
>>>>> case.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:57 PM, Stuart Douglas
>>>>> <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So I just did up a very quick prototype that
>>>>>> generates self signed certificates on startup and
>>>>>> it looks like the difference in startup time is
>>>>>> negligible (at least when generating 1024 bit RSA
>>>>>> keys). Even if the difference is measurable it
>>>>>> only affects the very first startup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that in order to simplify the
>>>>>> implementation of this it may be better to simply
>>>>>> generate the key of first startup, instead of
>>>>>> attempting to do it lazily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Jason T. Greene
>>>>>> <jason.greene at redhat.com
>>>>>> <mailto:jason.greene at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What will be default keysize? It has to
>>>>>>> be probably choosen to work also without
>>>>>>> "Java Cryptography Extension (JCE)
>>>>>>> Unlimited Strength Jurisdiction Policy"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably the largest that is supported
>>>>>>> without JCE. It does not matter that much,
>>>>>>> self signed certs are inherently insecure,
>>>>>>> this is a developer usability feature, not
>>>>>>> something that can be used in production.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IIRC there is actually no limit on RSA key
>>>>>> size, it's only symmetric algs that are
>>>>>> limited, so we could use a standard 2048 bit
>>>>>> key without issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Stuart
>>>>>>> Douglas <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I guess we should talk about how
>>>>>>> this should actually work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In terms of auto generating the key I
>>>>>>> was thinking we would need to add a
>>>>>>> new attribute to the 'keystore'
>>>>>>> element under the security realm,
>>>>>>> something like
>>>>>>> 'auto-generate-cert-host="localhost"'. I
>>>>>>> am not sure what other options we
>>>>>>> would need, or how configurable we
>>>>>>> should make it, but as this is for
>>>>>>> testing/development purposes I don't
>>>>>>> think we need to expose full control
>>>>>>> over the certificate generation process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In terms of the implementation we
>>>>>>> could just implement an SSLContext
>>>>>>> wrapper, that can do the generation
>>>>>>> and then create a 'real' SSLContext
>>>>>>> the first time it is asked to create
>>>>>>> and SSLEngine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Jason
>>>>>>> Greene <jason.greene at redhat.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:jason.greene at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > On Jun 2, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Harold Campbell <hcamp at muerte.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:hcamp at muerte.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 09:22 +1000, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>> >> Hi All,
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> I would like to propose that we add support for HTTP/2 out of the box
>>>>>>> >> in Wildfly 10.1.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > This lowly user desperately wants a release containing the fix to WFLY-
>>>>>>> > 6283 sooner rather than later. I'm sure other people have other pet
>>>>>>> > bugs awaiting release.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > I have no opinion on HTTP/2 being added other than to ask that pent up
>>>>>>> > bug fixes be kept in mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Harold,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That fix is already in master, so
>>>>>>> it will be included in 10.1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Jason T. Greene
>>>>>>> WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform
>>>>>>> Architect
>>>>>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>
> --
> Jason T. Greene
> WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>
More information about the wildfly-dev
mailing list