From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ED9CBAF33 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:08:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 67897ED8 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:07:43 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:07:39 +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 E39B4415A9; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:07:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <8faf1c4b-9035-4e58-9f80-9ecf21738c7b@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:07:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240320153921.3151412-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <6d30f4d4-8268-4e32-bc58-4d3cc0a4651f@proxmox.com> <236a178a-ca71-41ee-b443-ea594d6f447d@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <236a178a-ca71-41ee-b443-ea594d6f447d@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:08:13 -0000 On 3/22/24 09:46, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 22/03/2024 08:29, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> 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 always, the reasoning and why's count a bit more in such > cases – making the default insecure is something where a giving > a reason for why this is OK is rather a must... > ok sorry i think i misunderstood you, yes, the reason should be clear but i thought i did that by saying 'most esxi certs are self-signed' >>> 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? > > So can the others?! And that would be pretty obvious if the error > message gets passed through like I requested already off list over > a week ago.. > > As again... this is making the connection completely insecure, and > users with valid certs won't be notified of that fact "so simply check" > it is really not something a user can be aware of if it "works" without > enabling basic security.. > > 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) > > again, not an argument for why we should make it less secure. > >>> 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? > > No, I'd keep it off there, so having the user pass the --skip- option > makes it more clear. > > But tbh. I probably won't apply this in any way, as mentioned there > are other ways to actually improve on this, the error message would > be a relatively easy first one. ok fine with me