From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86E2C726C3 for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:56:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6ECDD25AA6 for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:55:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id C281625A96 for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:55:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 89F4D4202D for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:55:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <e7364f10-8922-b995-3718-78e16966b190@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:55:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/88.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>, pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20210412192833.21988-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20210412192833.21988-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.042 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [letsencrypt.org] Subject: Re: [pmg-devel] [PATCH pmg-api/pmg-docs/proxmox-widget-toolkit v2 0/1] allow wildcard DNS-names for ACME X-BeenThere: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Mail Gateway development discussion <pmg-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pmg-devel>, <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pmg-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pmg-devel>, <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 04:56:07 -0000 On 12.04.21 21:28, Stoiko Ivanov wrote: > v1->v2: > * reaad up on the requirements and infered from [0], a few HOWTOs and the > response from the LE staging directory that: > ``` > Orders that contain both a base domain and its wildcard equivalent (...) are > valid. > ``` > means that only such orders are valid (hence the requirement for the base I'm afraid, that's bogus. > name in addition to the wildcard name > * added a short stanza to pmg-docs describing the requirements > * added a patch for pwt to allow '*.' as prefix for domains in ACMEDomains actually read your linked article: > To request a wildcard certificate simply send a wildcard DNS identifier in the newOrder request. And from the actual RFC #8555 > Any identifier of type "dns" in a newOrder request MAY have a wildcard domain name as its value. So, it's: 1. just wildcard '*.domain.tld', totally fine 2. if an order contains a wildcard and the base domain, it's seen as valid too, but definitively *not* a requirement.. 2. stand in contrast to cases where a wildcard domain and a subdomain, which the wildcard would already cover, are passed in an order - as that is bogus. How do I know it works? Because I order wildcard certs with just the wildcard domain since ACME/Let's Encrypt supports it ;-) > [0] https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/acme-v2-production-environment-wildcards/55578