Connect as multiple users using single client certificate

2019-10-11 Thread Kyle Bateman
I have some JS middleware that needs to securely connect to the 
postgresql back end.  Any number of different users may connect via 
websocket to this middleware to manage their connection to the 
database.  I want the JS process to have a client certificate 
authorizing it to connect to the database.


I have this line in my pg_hba.conf:

hostssl        all    +users        all        cert

So the idea is, I should be able to connect as any user that is a member 
of the role "users."


Under this configuration, I can currently connect as the user "users" 
but not as "joe" who is a member of the role "users."  I get:


FATAL:  certificate authentication failed for user "joe"

This makes sense as the commonName on the certificate is "users" and not 
"joe."  But the documentation for pg_hba.conf states that prefixing the 
username with a "+" should allow me to connect as any role who is a 
member of the stated role.


Is there a way to do this via client certificate authorization?  I have 
no way of knowing the specific usernames ahead of time, as new users may 
be created in the database (thousands) and I can't really be creating 
separate certificates for every different user.






Re: Connect as multiple users using single client certificate

2019-10-11 Thread Kyle Bateman

On 10/11/19 12:12 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

On 10/11/19 1:58 PM, Kyle Bateman wrote:

I have some JS middleware that needs to securely connect to the
postgresql back end.  Any number of different users may connect via
websocket to this middleware to manage their connection to the
database.  I want the JS process to have a client certificate
authorizing it to connect to the database.

I have this line in my pg_hba.conf:

hostssl        all    +users        all        cert

So the idea is, I should be able to connect as any user that is a
member of the role "users."

Under this configuration, I can currently connect as the user "users"
but not as "joe" who is a member of the role "users."  I get:

FATAL:  certificate authentication failed for user "joe"

This makes sense as the commonName on the certificate is "users" and
not "joe."  But the documentation for pg_hba.conf states that
prefixing the username with a "+" should allow me to connect as any
role who is a member of the stated role.

Is there a way to do this via client certificate authorization?  I
have no way of knowing the specific usernames ahead of time, as new
users may be created in the database (thousands) and I can't really be
creating separate certificates for every different user.




I think the short answer is: No. The client certificate should match the
username and nothing else. If you don't want to generate certificates
for all your users I suggest using some other form of auth (e.g.
scram-sha-256).


The long answer is that you can use maps, but it's probably not a good
idea. e.g. you have a map allowing foo to connect as both bar and baz,
and give both bar and baz a certificate with a CN of foo. But then bar
can connect as baz and vice versa, which isn't a good thing.


cheers


andrew


Hmmm, too bad.  It would be nice to be able to generate a certificate, 
say with a commonName of "+users" (or some other setting) which matches 
what is specified in pg_hba.conf, allowing connections from anyone 
within the specified group.  Seems like that is the intent of the "+" 
syntax in the first place.


In my case, the middleware is validating end-users using distributed 
keys, so no username/passwords are needed.  I was hoping to avoid all 
that and just rely on SSL.


Any idea if this is a viable feature enhancement?

Kyle


Kyle





Re: Connect as multiple users using single client certificate

2019-10-11 Thread Kyle Bateman

On 10/11/19 1:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Kyle Bateman  writes:

On 10/11/19 12:12 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

I think the short answer is: No. The client certificate should match the
username and nothing else. If you don't want to generate certificates
for all your users I suggest using some other form of auth (e.g.
scram-sha-256).
The long answer is that you can use maps, but it's probably not a good
idea. e.g. you have a map allowing foo to connect as both bar and baz,
and give both bar and baz a certificate with a CN of foo. But then bar
can connect as baz and vice versa, which isn't a good thing.

Hmmm, too bad.  It would be nice to be able to generate a certificate,
say with a commonName of "+users" (or some other setting) which matches
what is specified in pg_hba.conf, allowing connections from anyone
within the specified group.  Seems like that is the intent of the "+"
syntax in the first place.

No, it's not.  The point of the +syntax is to let a collection of users
log in without having to adjust pg_hba.conf anytime you add a new user.
It's not meant to bypass the requirement that the users authenticate
properly.  Would you expect that if you used +users with a password-
based auth method, then all the users would have the same password?


In my case, the middleware is validating end-users using distributed
keys, so no username/passwords are needed.  I was hoping to avoid all
that and just rely on SSL.
Any idea if this is a viable feature enhancement?

I agree with Andrew that that's just silly.  If you give all your users
the same cert then any of them can masquerade as any other.  You might
as well just tell them to share the same login id.
In my implementation, I'm not giving the cert to all my users.  I'm only 
giving it to the middleware server that manages connections.


What I hope to accomplish is: Establish a secure, encrypted connection 
to Postgresql from a trusted process, possibly running on another 
machine, whom I trust to tell me which user (within a limited set, 
defined by a role) it would like to connect as.  That process does it's 
own robust authentication of users before letting them through to the 
database by the username they claim.  However, it is still useful to 
connect as different users because my views and functions operate 
differently depending on which user is on the other end of the connection.


Is there a way I can accomplish this using the existing authentication 
methods (other than trust)?