[bug#36998] [PATCH] services: certbot: Add --manual-public-ip-logging-ok for manual challenges

[bug#36998] [PATCH] services: certbot: Add --manual-public-ip-logging-ok for manual challenges

[Carlo Zancanaro]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 348 bytes --]

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!


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-services-certbot-Add-manual-public-ip-logging-ok-for.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1071 bytes --]

From 4a888155261caba0c4e11f8515a271ba33b92bc6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Carlo Zancanaro <carlo@zancanaro.id.au>
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

[bug#36998] [PATCH] services: certbot: Add --manual-public-ip-logging-ok for manual challenges

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Carlo,

Time flies…

Carlo Zancanaro <carlo@zancanaro.id.au> skribis:

> 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!

[...]

> --- 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 ","))

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?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

[bug#36998] [PATCH] services: certbot: Add --manual-public-ip-logging-ok for manual challenges

[Carlo Zancanaro]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1545 bytes --]

Hey Ludo’,

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. 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.

Carlo

[1]: https://github.com/certbot/certbot/issues/991
[2]: 
https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/public-logging-of-requesting-ip-addresses/64077
[3]: https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/public-ip-logging/89712


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-services-certbot-Add-manual-public-ip-logging-ok-for.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1931 bytes --]

From a2622f26474685378aad1b2dbf4fbcc66f14358e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Carlo Zancanaro <carlo@zancanaro.id.au>
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.
---
 doc/guix.texi            | 4 +++-
 gnu/services/certbot.scm | 1 +
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
index 043851e418..9f550f65e1 100644
--- a/doc/guix.texi
+++ b/doc/guix.texi
@@ -20146,7 +20146,9 @@ all domains will be Subject Alternative Names on the certificate.
 The challenge type that has to be run by certbot.  If @code{#f} is specified,
 default to the HTTP challenge.  If a value is specified, defaults to the
 manual plugin (see @code{authentication-hook}, @code{cleanup-hook} and
-the documentation at @url{https://certbot.eff.org/docs/using.html#hooks}).
+the documentation at @url{https://certbot.eff.org/docs/using.html#hooks}),
+and gives Let's Encrypt permission to log the public IP address of the
+requesting machine.
 
 @item @code{authentication-hook} (default: @code{#f})
 Command to be run in a shell once for each certificate challenge to be
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
-- 
2.23.0

bug#36998: [PATCH] services: certbot: Add --manual-public-ip-logging-ok for manual challenges

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Carlo,

Carlo Zancanaro <carlo@zancanaro.id.au> 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’.