From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <d.csapak@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 BAD18BAEA7 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:29:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9BDBF37CA0 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:29:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (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 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:29:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5E1A041865; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:29:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <f2a330f1-db73-4037-abe4-1fdab4631a79@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:29:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20240320153921.3151412-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <6d30f4d4-8268-4e32-bc58-4d3cc0a4651f@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <6d30f4d4-8268-4e32-bc58-4d3cc0a4651f@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.014 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] ui: storage: esxi: check 'skip certificate verification' by default X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 07:29:40 -0000 On 3/21/24 18:07, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 20/03/2024 16:39, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> needing one less step when adding the storage, assuming most esxi >> certificates are self-signed. > > Well this makes it insecure by default though? Which is not something > I'd just not mention in such a commit message... imho it is very obvious what it does from the commit subject? 'skipping the certificate verification' ? but ok, i can add a sentence more in the description.. > > As that was the original reason I ticked it in the first place > when pondering between security and convenience... > the thought here was that users that make the effort of giving their esxi instances valid certificates, can simply uncheck the checkbox? and i guess many of the users won't bother doing that for the esxi instances? (e.g. vcenter does not make that distinction, all it does is ask for hostname/ip + password, and cert management seems to be non-trivial) > If we do this I'd rather rename it to "Check Certificate" and have > that unticked. ok makes sense, i'd name it 'verify certificate' though to be in line with our realm/metric server wording also should this be only in the frontend, or do we want to reverse the api/config option as well? > > Even better would be to be able to pass a finger-print, which was our > first idea, but Wolfgang found that the esxi python wrapper is to > enterprisy to hook into basic TLS validation, and he also rejected > proxying..