- Modify `ra.checkCertificatesPerFQDNSetLimit()` to use a leaky bucket algorithm
- Return issuance timestamps from `sa.FQDNSetTimestampsForWindow()` in descending order
Resolves#6154
Add a new rate limit, identical in implementation to the current
`CertificatesPerFQDNSet` limit, intended to always have both a lower
window and a lower threshold. This allows us to block runaway clients
quickly, and give their owners the ability to fix and try again quickly
(on the order of hours instead of days).
Configure the integration tests to set this new limit at 2 certs per 2
hours. Also increase the existing limit from 5 to 6 certs in 7 days, to
allow clients to hit the first limit three times before being fully
blocked for the week. Also add a new integration test to verify this
behavior.
Note that the new ratelimit must have a window greater than the
configured certificate backdate (currently 1 hour) in order to be
useful.
Fixes#5210
In order to move multi perspective validation forward we need to support policy
in Boulder configuration that can relax multi-va requirements temporarily.
A similar mechanism was used in support of the gradual deprecation of the
TLS-SNI-01 challenge type and with the introduction of CAA enforcement and has
shown to be a helpful tool to have available when introducing changes that are
expected to break sites.
When the VA "multiVAPolicyFile" is specified it is assumed to be a YAML file
containing two lists:
1. disabledNames - a list of domain names that are exempt from multi VA
enforcement.
2. disabledAccounts - a list of account IDs that are exempt from multi VA
enforcement.
When a hostname or account ID is added to the policy we'll begin communication
with the related ACME account contact to establish that this is a temporary
measure and the root problem will need to be addressed before an eventual
cut-off date.
Resolves https://github.com/letsencrypt/boulder/issues/4455
The `TotalCertificates` rate limit serves to ensure we don't
accidentally exceed our OCSP signing capacity by issuing too many
certificates within a fixed period. In practice this rate limit has been
fragile and the associated queries have been linked to performance
problems.
Since we now have better means of monitoring our OCSP signing capacity
this commit removes the rate limit and associated code.
Previously we updated the RA's issueCertificateInner function to prefix errors returned from the CA with meaningful information about which CA RPC caused the failure. Unfortunately by using fmt.Errorf to do this we're discarding the underlying error type. This can cause unexpected server internal errors downstream if (for e.g.) the CA rejects a CSR with a malformed error (see #3632).
This PR updates the issueCertificateInner error message prefixing to maintain the error type if the underlying error is a berrors.BoulderError. A RA unit test with several mock CAs is added to test the prefixing occurs as expected without loss of error type.
This PR also adds an integration test that ensures we reject a CSR with >100 names with a malformed error. This is not strictly related to this PR but since I wrote it while debugging the root issue I thought I'd include it. To allow this test to pass the pendingAuthorizationsPerAccount in test/rate-limit-policies.yml and associated tests had to be adjusted.
Resolves#3632
This commit adds short 15s runs of the load generator against the V1 and
V2 APIs during the three integration test runs (v1 config, v1
config-next, and v2). 15s was selected because 30s caused too much
output and the build log to be truncated.
Presently the latency output is *not* being checked for errors. This was
too flaky in practice.
A fix for a race condition in the load-generator code itself related to
HTTP status code tracking is included in this commit.
The pending authz rate limit also needed to be adjusted to keep the
load-generator from failing requests after hitting 429s.
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 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
Prior to this PR the SA's `CountRegistrationsByIP` treated IPv6
differently than IPv4 by counting registrations within a /48 for IPv6 as
opposed to exact matches for IPv4. This PR updates
`CountRegistrationsByIP` to treat IPv4 and IPv6 the
same, always matching exactly. The existing RegistrationsPerIP rate
limit policy will be applied against this exact matching count.
A new `CountRegistrationsByIPRange` function is added to the SA that
performs the historic matching process, e.g. for IPv4 it counts exactly
the same as `CountRegistrationsByIP`, but for IPv6 it counts within
a /48.
A new `RegistrationsPerIPRange` rate limit policy is added to allow
configuring the threshold/window for the fuzzy /48 matching registration
limit. Stats for the "Exceeded" and "Pass" events for this rate limit are
separated into a separate `RegistrationsByIPRange` stats scope under
the `RateLimit` scope to allow us to track it separate from the exact
registrations per IP rate limit.
Resolves https://github.com/letsencrypt/boulder/issues/2738
Fixes#976.
This implements a new rate limit, InvalidAuthorizationsPerAccount. If a given account fails authorization for a given hostname too many times within the window, subsequent new-authz attempts for that account and hostname will fail early with a rateLimited error. This mitigates the misconfigured clients that constantly retry authorization even though they always fail (e.g., because the hostname no longer resolves).
For the new rate limit, I added a new SA RPC, CountInvalidAuthorizations. I chose to implement this only in gRPC, not in AMQP-RPC, so checking the rate limit is gated on gRPC. See #2406 for some description of the how and why. I also chose to directly use the gRPC interfaces rather than wrapping them in core.StorageAuthority, as a step towards what we will want to do once we've moved fully to gRPC.
Because authorizations don't have a created time, we need to look at the expires time instead. Invalid authorizations retain the expiration they were given when they were created as pending authorizations, so we use now + pendingAuthorizationLifetime as one side of the window for rate limiting, and look backwards from there. Note that this means you could maliciously bypass this rate limit by stacking up pending authorizations over time, then failing them all at once.
Similarly, since this limit is by (account, hostname) rather than just (hostname), you can bypass it by creating multiple accounts. It would be more natural and robust to limit by hostname, like our certificate limits. However, we currently only have two indexes on the authz table: the primary key, and
(`registrationID`,`identifier`,`status`,`expires`)
Since this limit is intended mainly to combat misconfigured clients, I think this is sufficient for now.
Corresponding PR for website: letsencrypt/website#125
Use bridged networking.
Add some files to .dockerignore to shrink the build state sent to Docker
daemon.
Use specific hostnames to contact services, rather than localhost.
Add instructions for adding those hostnames to /etc/hosts in non-Docker config.
Use DSN-style connect strings for DBs.
Remove localhost / 127.0.0.1 rewrite hack from create_db.sh.
Add hosts section with new hostnames.
Remove bin from .dockerignore.
SQL grants go to %
Short-circuit DB creation if already existing.
Make `go install` a part of Docker image build so that Docker run is much
faster.
Bind to 0.0.0.0 for OCSP responders so they can be reached from host, and
publish / expose their ports.
Remove ToSServerThread and test.js' fetch of ToS.
Increase the registrationsPerIP rate limit threshold. When issuing from a Docker
host, the 127.0.0.1 override doesn't apply, so the limit is quickly hit.
Update docker-compose for bridged networking. Note: docker-compose doesn't currently work, but should be close.
https://github.com/letsencrypt/boulder/pull/1639
Adds a new rate limit, certficatesPerFQDNSet, which counts certificates
with the same set of FQDNS using a table containing the hash of the dNSNames
mapped to a certificate serial. A new method is added to the SA in AddCertificate
to add this hash to the fqdnSets table, which is gated by a config bool.
Samantha