- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- HPE ProLiant
- >
- Server Management - Remote Server Management
- >
- iLO certificate generation bug after upgrade
Server Management - Remote Server Management
1752736
Members
5495
Online
108789
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-30-2005 02:08 AM
09-30-2005 02:08 AM
iLO certificate generation bug after upgrade
Hello,
there seems to be a bug in the way iLO (all firmware versions up to 1.82) generates its certificates for HTTPS connections. This annoying when a firmware upgrade is attempted in conjunction with Firefox, since Firefox thoroughly validates the server certificate and finds a subtle error.
The problem is:
when upgrading iLO Firmware, the contents of the server certificate are kept, including date of issue and _serial number_, but the the certificate gets signed with a different key and thus has other MD5 and SHA1 signatures.
Because of that, two valid certificates (from the same CA, since they are self-signed certificates) exist that have the same serial number, which violates RFC RFC 2459 and its successor RFC 3280.
Since Firefox knows the "old" certificate because that was the one used to trigger the firmware upgrade and gets presented the "new" one after the iLO reload is complete, the violation is detected and Firefox refuses to establish an SSL connection. This behaviour from Firefox is standards-complaint and okay, it is the iLO Firemware that MUST issue a new serial number to the new certificate.
I have attached a tar with two certificates for the same server that carry the same serial. And, for reference, here are the relevant sections of the RFCs:
2459
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/rfcdoctype.pl?loc=RFC&letsgo=2459&type=ftp&file_format=txt):
4.1.2.2 Â Serial number
  The serial number is an integer assigned by the CA to each certificate.  It MUST be unique for each certificate issued by a given CA (i.e., the issuer name and serial number identify a unique certificate).
3280
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/rfcdoctype.pl?loc=RFC&letsgo=3280&type=ftp&file_format=txt):
4.1.2.2 Â Serial number
  The serial number MUST be a positive integer assigned by the CA to each certificate.  It MUST be unique for each certificate issued by a given CA (i.e., the issuer name and serial number identify a unique certificate).  CAs MUST force the serialNumber to be a non-negative integer.
  Given the uniqueness requirements above, serial numbers can be expected to contain long integers.  Certificate users MUST be able to handle serialNumber values up to 20 octets. Conformant CAs MUST NOT use serialNumber values longer than 20 octets.
  Note: Non-conforming CAs may issue certificates with serial numbers that are negative, or zero.  Certificate users SHOULD be prepared to gracefully handle such certificates.
The only way to workaround this iLO bug is to empty the certificate store of all iLO certificates and to only accept the presented certs of the old iLO revisions for the session only _and_ to restart Firefox after the firmware upgrade is complete to start a new session. This is very cumbersome when upgrading large installations.
I'd recommend to implement certificate handling within iLO in a standards-compliant way.
Greetings,
Stefan Winter
there seems to be a bug in the way iLO (all firmware versions up to 1.82) generates its certificates for HTTPS connections. This annoying when a firmware upgrade is attempted in conjunction with Firefox, since Firefox thoroughly validates the server certificate and finds a subtle error.
The problem is:
when upgrading iLO Firmware, the contents of the server certificate are kept, including date of issue and _serial number_, but the the certificate gets signed with a different key and thus has other MD5 and SHA1 signatures.
Because of that, two valid certificates (from the same CA, since they are self-signed certificates) exist that have the same serial number, which violates RFC RFC 2459 and its successor RFC 3280.
Since Firefox knows the "old" certificate because that was the one used to trigger the firmware upgrade and gets presented the "new" one after the iLO reload is complete, the violation is detected and Firefox refuses to establish an SSL connection. This behaviour from Firefox is standards-complaint and okay, it is the iLO Firemware that MUST issue a new serial number to the new certificate.
I have attached a tar with two certificates for the same server that carry the same serial. And, for reference, here are the relevant sections of the RFCs:
2459
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/rfcdoctype.pl?loc=RFC&letsgo=2459&type=ftp&file_format=txt):
4.1.2.2 Â Serial number
  The serial number is an integer assigned by the CA to each certificate.  It MUST be unique for each certificate issued by a given CA (i.e., the issuer name and serial number identify a unique certificate).
3280
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/rfcdoctype.pl?loc=RFC&letsgo=3280&type=ftp&file_format=txt):
4.1.2.2 Â Serial number
  The serial number MUST be a positive integer assigned by the CA to each certificate.  It MUST be unique for each certificate issued by a given CA (i.e., the issuer name and serial number identify a unique certificate).  CAs MUST force the serialNumber to be a non-negative integer.
  Given the uniqueness requirements above, serial numbers can be expected to contain long integers.  Certificate users MUST be able to handle serialNumber values up to 20 octets. Conformant CAs MUST NOT use serialNumber values longer than 20 octets.
  Note: Non-conforming CAs may issue certificates with serial numbers that are negative, or zero.  Certificate users SHOULD be prepared to gracefully handle such certificates.
The only way to workaround this iLO bug is to empty the certificate store of all iLO certificates and to only accept the presented certs of the old iLO revisions for the session only _and_ to restart Firefox after the firmware upgrade is complete to start a new session. This is very cumbersome when upgrading large installations.
I'd recommend to implement certificate handling within iLO in a standards-compliant way.
Greetings,
Stefan Winter
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2024 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP