emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#36998: closed ([PATCH] services: certbot: Add --ma


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#36998: closed ([PATCH] services: certbot: Add --manual-public-ip-logging-ok for manual challenges)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 08:24:02 +0000

Your message dated Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:23:06 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: [bug#36998] [PATCH] services: certbot: Add 
--manual-public-ip-logging-ok for manual challenges
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #36998,
regarding [PATCH] services: certbot: Add --manual-public-ip-logging-ok for 
manual challenges
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden.)


-- 
36998: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=36998
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: [PATCH] services: certbot: Add --manual-public-ip-logging-ok for manual challenges Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 23:08:59 +1000 User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.2 I recently tried to configure the certbot-service with the dns challenge type. It failed, because certbot tries to ask whether you're okay with letsencrypt knowing (and potentially logging) your IP address, but within an mcron task that just fails.

The solution is to add the --manual-public-ip-logging-ok flag, so here's a patch to do that!

>From 4a888155261caba0c4e11f8515a271ba33b92bc6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Carlo Zancanaro <address@hidden>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 22:52:50 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] services: certbot: Add --manual-public-ip-logging-ok for
 manual challenges

* gnu/services/certbot.scm (certbot-command): Add
  --manual-public-ip-logging-ok flag to the certbot command when doing a
  manual challenge.
---
 gnu/services/certbot.scm | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/gnu/services/certbot.scm b/gnu/services/certbot.scm
index ae34ad17bb..0d3be03383 100644
--- a/gnu/services/certbot.scm
+++ b/gnu/services/certbot.scm
@@ -99,6 +99,7 @@
                             "--manual"
                             (string-append "--preferred-challenges=" challenge)
                             "--cert-name" name
+                            "--manual-public-ip-logging-ok"
                             "-d" (string-join domains ","))
                       (if rsa-key-size `("--rsa-key-size" ,rsa-key-size) '())
                       (if authentication-hook
-- 
2.22.0


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: [bug#36998] [PATCH] services: certbot: Add --manual-public-ip-logging-ok for manual challenges Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:23:06 +0200 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
Hi Carlo,

Carlo Zancanaro <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Wed, Sep 11 2019, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Perhaps we should pass --manual-public-ip-logging-ok only when
>> ‘challenge’ has the expected value (DNS challenge type; what’s the
>> value for that?), and also document that prominently in the manual?
>
> My understanding is that this flag is necessary for any manual
> challenge type, it's just that our default HTTP challenge doesn't use
> a "manual" challenge type. For a DNS challenge the value for challenge
> should be "dns".
>
> I was a little torn about documenting it in the manual, because using
> the manual IP logging doesn't leak any more information than the
> standard HTTP challenge type.

True.  The only difference is that the Let’s Encrypt operators
explicitly state that they will log the IP address in this case, whereas
they may not do it otherwise.

> There is a certbot issue discussing the problem for manual
> challenges[1], and the problem is when one requests the certificate
> from a different machine to the one that will use the
> certificate. This doesn't seem to be the natural use case for the Guix
> certbot-service-type, so I didn't feel it was necessary to add it to
> the manual. I'm also fairly sure that the logged IPs are not publicly
> available at the moment, based on this[2] and this[3].
>
> Given all of that, I have attached a patch with a small update to the
> manual. I don't think I'd describe it as "prominent", but it does
> mention it in an appropriate place.

Yeah, there wasn’t any reaction, so it’s probably good enough.  I’ve
applied it now, thank you!

Ludo’.


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]