FOG 1.5.6 Officially Released
-
@Sebastian-Roth Really when you think about it, its not an either or situation. Why not setup both http and https in apache. Neither is dependent on the other.
So go ahead and by default create the apache self signed certificate and spin up both http and https in apache (to different config files so the FOG admin can stop http if wanted). Make the self signed public root certificate available so the IT admin can download it and install it in his/her computer’s trusted certificate store then no more warnings in the web browser for certificate issues. (we did something similar with our vSphere environment where vCenter creates its own self signed certificates)
The issue will be with making ipxe https compliant. Those binaries could be problematic on the target FOG system. IT can be done, but then FOG will need to load the compiler and development libraries to compile iPXE. It can be done, its just one more failure domain.
(thinking out loud here) I wonder if FOG can create a valid certificate chain, then create the local certificates via a subordinate CA. So if the FOG Project created a root level trusted certificate then all FOG servers would then create their self signed certificate (as a subordinate CA) from the FOG Project trusted root certificate. The iPXE binaries could be compiled against the FOG Project trusted root certificate by the FOG Project devs. Would those work in this new SSL environment since everything would have a common trusted root? (just guessing). Would this be any different situation from what Verisign or other trusted root providers do?
-
@george1421 said in FOG 1.5.6 Officially Released:
Why not setup both http and https in apache.
I’d say that’s a good idea.
-
@astrugatch Sorry for my late reply. Just too many other things so I set this aside for a bit…
To be clear I’m mostly speaking about the web UI right now.
Ok fine. I will work on adding that to the installer in a way that more people might use it.
But the client would be important too.
What exactly to you mean? We do state of the art encryption between fog-client and FOG server ever since the current fog-client was released (compared to the old legacy client). Anything more we need here?
The way JAMF handles the migration is that it continues to use its internal CA and distributes the new cert to the machines on check in. It keeps track of those that have received the cert and compares that to its list of enrolled machines. When all machines have received the cert there is a UI element that goes from red to green letting you know that the server can now be switched to communicate via the external CA.
Yeah this is highly advanced certificate handling that I would love to add to FOG but probably won’t find the time to do so any time soon. We are on the very edge with way too little work force working on FOG.
I’d prioritize the mentioned database password security now. Follow up topic here: https://forums.fogproject.org/topic/13267/database-security
-
If the FOG client uses HTTP to communicate, is there any reason that we have to use the generated self-signed certificate for HTTPS?
Why not run both but allow the admin to change the cert for just HTTPS? No need to change the way the client works but allows the admin to use a signed certificate if they want to avoid the browser warnings.
I kind of do this now except I use the FOG generated certificate. I do not really mind the browser warning (as long as they do not start outright blocking it).
I have not tested this using my signed certificate but I can test it next Monday if there is interest.
-
@jburleson if the cert you’re using is signed by the fog server, and the machines you are using to access the server have the fog client on them, then you shouldn’t get the warnings either as the FOG CA signed the certificate and it’s relevant chain is also trusted by the machine.
-
@Tom-Elliott For Windows 10, I think this is only true if you use Microsoft Edge. If you use a different browser (Firefox, Chrome, etc.), then you will get the browser warning until you add an exception for the cert in the browser. At least that has been my experience so far on all the Windows 10 machines that I have deployed.
-
@jburleson for Firefox yes but chrome uses the windows cert store
-
@jburleson Yes both firefox and chrome uses the windows cert store as Tom posted. I know because we had to do this with our vCenter servers. You need to take the public root certificate of the self signed certificate and import it into the machine’s trusted root certificate store. Once you do that then there is no warnings in any of the three browsers.
While these instructions are specific to vCenter the process would be the same for any self signed root certificate. https://tinkertry.com/how-to-get-rid-of-vsphere-browser-certificate-warnings-in-windows
-
An issue was found in 1.5.6 that calls for an early next release to fix that. Find the details here if you run into problems with FTP connections on kernel updates or storage nodes in 1.5.6: https://github.com/FOGProject/fogproject/issues/311
