When the `features.PrecertificateRevocation` feature flag is enabled the WFE2
will allow revoking certificates for a submitted precertificate. The legacy WFE1
behaviour remains unchanged (as before (pre)certificates issued through the V1
API will be revocable with the V2 API).
Previously the WFE2 vetted the certificate from the revocation request by
looking up a final certificate by the serial number in the requested
certificate, and then doing a byte for byte comparison between the stored and
requested certificate.
Rather than adjust this logic to handle looking up and comparing stored
precertificates against requested precertificates (requiring new RPCs and an
additional round-trip) we choose to instead check the signature on the requested
certificate or precertificate and consider it valid for revocation if the
signature validates with one of the WFE2's known issuers. We trust the integrity
of our own signatures.
An integration test that performs a revocation of a precertificate (in this case
one that never had a final certificate issued due to SCT embedded errors) with
all of the available authentication mechanisms is included.
Resolves https://github.com/letsencrypt/boulder/issues/4414
This change adds two tables and two methods in the SA, to store precertificates
and serial numbers.
In the CA, when the feature flag is turned on, we generate a serial number, store it,
sign a precertificate and OCSP, store them, and then return the precertificate. Storing
the serial as an additional step before signing the certificate adds an extra layer of
insurance against duplicate serials, and also serves as a check on database availability.
Since an error storing the serial prevents going on to sign the precertificate, this decreases
the chance of signing something while the database is down.
Right now, neither table has read operations available in the SA.
To make this work, I needed to remove the check for duplicate certificateStatus entry
when inserting a final certificate and its OCSP response. I also needed to remove
an error that can occur when expiration-mailer processes a precertificate that lacks
a final certificate. That error would otherwise have prevented further processing of
expiration warnings.
Fixes#4412
This change builds on #4417, please review that first for ease of review.
This PR implements new SA methods for handling authz2 style authorizations and updates existing SA methods to count and retrieve them where applicable when the `NewAuthorizationSchema` feature is enabled.
Fixes#4093Fixes#4082
Updates #4078
Updates #4077
This changeset implements the logic required for the WFE to retrieve v2 authorizations and their associated challenges while still maintaining the logic to retrieve old authorizations/challenges. Challenge IDs for v2 authorizations are obfuscated using a pretty simply scheme in order to prevent hard coding of indexes. A `V2` field is added to the `core.Authorization` object and populated using the existing field of the same name from the protobuf for convenience. v2 authorizations and challenges use a `v2` prefix in all their URLs in order to easily differentiate between v1 and v2 URLs (e.g. `/acme/authz/v2/asd` and `/acme/challenge/v2/asd/123`), once v1 authorizations cease to exist this prefix can be safely removed. As v2 authorizations use int IDs this change switches from string IDs to int IDs, this mainly only effects tests.
Integration tests are put off for #4079 as they really need #4077 and #4078 to be properly effective.
Fixes#4041.
Implements a feature that enables immediate revocation instead of marking a certificate revoked and waiting for the OCSP-Updater to generate the OCSP response. This means that as soon as the request returns from the WFE the revoked OCSP response should be available to the user. This feature requires that the RA be configured to use the standalone Akamai purger service.
Fixes#4031.
Things removed:
* features.EmbedSCTs (and all the associated RA/CA/ocsp-updater code etc)
* ca.enablePrecertificateFlow (and all the associated RA/CA code)
* sa.AddSCTReceipt and sa.GetSCTReceipt RPCs
* publisher.SubmitToCT and publisher.SubmitToSingleCT RPCs
Fixes#3755.
Now that #3638 has been deployed to all of the RA instances there are no
more RPC clients using the SA's `CountCertificatesRange` RPC.
This commit deletes the implementation, the RPC definition & wrappers,
and all the test code/mocks.
Previously we introduced the concept of a "pending orders per account
ID" rate limit. After struggling with making an implementation of this
rate limit perform well we reevaluated the problem and decided a "new
orders per account per time window" rate limit would be a better fit for
ACMEv2 overall.
This commit introduces the new newOrdersPerAccount rate limit. The RA
now checks this before creating new pending orders in ra.NewOrder. It
does so after order reuse takes place ensuring the rate limit is only
applied in cases when a distinct new pending order row would be created.
To accomplish this a migration for a new orders field (created) and an
index over created and registrationID is added. It would be possible to
use the existing expires field for this like we've done in the past, but that
was primarily to avoid running a migration on a large table in prod. Since
we don't have that problem yet for V2 tables we can Do The Right Thing
and add a column.
For deployability the deprecated pendingOrdersPerAccount code & SA
gRPC bits are left around. A follow-up PR will be needed to remove
those (#3502).
Resolves#3410
This commit resolves the case where an error during finalization occurs.
Prior to this commit if an error (expected or otherwise) occurred after
setting an order to status processing at the start of order
finalization the order would be stuck processing forever.
The SA now has a `SetOrderError` RPC that can be used by the RA to
persist an error onto an order. The order status calculation can use
this error to decide if the order is invalid. The WFE is updated to
write the error to the order JSON when displaying the order information.
Prior to this commit the order protobuf had the error field as
a `[]byte`. It doesn't seem like this is the right decision, we have
a specific protobuf type for ProblemDetails and so this commit switches
the error field to use it. The conversion to/from `[]byte` is done with
the model by the SA.
An integration test is included that prior to this commit left an order
in a stuck processing state. With this commit the integration test
passes as expected.
Resolves https://github.com/letsencrypt/boulder/issues/3403
The SA RPC previously called `GetOrderAuthorizations` only returns
**valid, unexpired** authorizations. This commit updates the name to
emphasize that it only returns valid order authzs.
This change adds a feature flag, TLSSNIRevalidation. When it is enabled, Boulder
will create new authorization objects with TLS-SNI challenges if the requesting
account has issued a certificate with the relevant domain name, and was the most
recent account to do so*. This setting overrides the configured list of
challenges in the PolicyAuthority, so even if TLS-SNI is disabled in general, it
will be enabled for revalidation.
Note that this interacts with EnforceChallengeDisable. Because
EnforceChallengeDisable causes additional checked at validation time and at
issuance time, we need to update those two places as well. We'll send a
follow-up PR with that.
*We chose to make this work only for the most recent account to issue, even if
there were overlapping certificates, because it significantly simplifies the
database access patterns and should work for 95+% of cases.
Note that this change will let an account revalidate and reissue for a domain
even if the previous issuance on that account used http-01 or dns-01. This also
simplifies implementation, and fits within the intent of the mitigation plan: If
someone previously issued for a domain using http-01, we have high confidence
that they are actually the owner, and they are not going to "steal" the domain
from themselves using tls-sni-01.
Also note: This change also doesn't work properly with ReusePendingAuthz: true.
Specifically, if you attempted issuance in the last couple days and failed
because there was no tls-sni challenge, you'll still have an http-01 challenge
lying around, and we'll reuse that; then your client will fail due to lack of
tls-sni challenge again.
This change was joint work between @rolandshoemaker and @jsha.
This commit adds pending order reuse. Subsequent to this commit multiple
add-order requests from the same account ID for the same set of order
names will result in only one order being created. Orders are only
reused while they are not expired. Finalized orders will not be reused
for subsequent new-order requests allowing for duplicate order issuance.
Note that this is a second level of reuse, building on the pending
authorization reuse that's done between separate orders already.
To efficiently find an appropriate order ID given a set of names,
a registration ID, and the current time a new orderFqdnSets table is
added with appropriate indexes and foreign keys.
Resolves#3258
This commit adds a new rate limit to restrict the number of outstanding
pending orders per account. If the threshold for this rate limit is
crossed subsequent new-order requests will return a 429 response.
Note: Since this the rate limit object itself defines an `Enabled()`
test based on whether or not it has been configured there is **not**
a feature flag for this change.
Resolves https://github.com/letsencrypt/boulder/issues/3246
This PR implements order finalization for the ACME v2 API.
In broad strokes this means:
* Removing the CSR from order objects & the new-order flow
* Adding identifiers to the order object & new-order
* Providing a finalization URL as part of orders returned by new-order
* Adding support to the WFE's Order endpoint to receive finalization POST requests with a CSR
* Updating the RA to accept finalization requests and to ensure orders are fully validated before issuance can proceed
* Updating the SA to allow finding order authorizations & updating orders.
* Updating the CA to accept an Order ID to log when issuing a certificate corresponding to an order object
Resolves#3123
Daniel McCarney
Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
Roland Bracewell Shoemaker
Roland Bracewell Shoemaker
Daniel McCarney
JP Phillips