Switching from openssl to gnutls for https traffic on apache

gjwalsh · 11-03-2010, 06:54 PM

For some years now I have been able to use openssl (apache-mod_ssl) to process encrypted traffic because I had, in effect, only one host - the main server - as the sole entry in our ssl_vhost.conf file.

Now we are working toward serving a couple of more secure sites for closely related organizations, but with their own distinct identities. This, in the past, would have meant additional static IPs with matching nic cards for starters. But my understanding is that since 2007/8 we have been able to use gnutls (apache-mod_gnutls) which gets around the old problem of Apache not being able to direct name-based traffic because that would not yet have been decoded. This is referred to as SNI - Server Name Indication.

Here my confusion begins. Is there an overlap between SSL and TLS? For instance, I would have generated RSA keys and a self-signed certificate with the genrsa command. Is this sufficient for gnutls or does it need to generate its own keys and certificates? I realize gnutls is relatively a new kid on the block but it is appealing and I'd like to give it a try.

Has anyone on the forum some experience with this?

I am working with the Mandriva/Mageia cooker with an x86_64 architecture so all packages are up-to-the-minute.

George

bathory · 11-04-2010, 01:17 AM

Hi,

Quote:

Here my confusion begins. Is there an overlap between SSL and TLS? For instance, I would have generated RSA keys and a self-signed certificate with the genrsa command. Is this sufficient for gnutls or does it need to generate its own keys and certificates?

Yes you can use the same certificates. There is nothing special when you use SNI.

Regards

Noway2 · 11-04-2010, 04:37 AM

A while back, I too was really interested in gnutls for its SNI capability. At the time, Apache was supposed to support SNI in some future upgrade and I don't know if it was ever included. In order to use it, I first had to upgrade my openSSL library to the current one (the Ubuntu repositories were behind) and then patch Apache and built it from the source, which was a little tricky until I discovered the debian-layout configuration switch.

After the above, it seemed to work, at least most of the time, and with certain browsers like Firefox, but not the version of IE that we used at work. Overall, I think it is a convenient tool for someone who wants to host their own sites and have moderate security. I don't think it is production ready, at least as far as for professional services.

In case you are interested, at the time I posted some information regarding the process of getting it working on another forum. Here is the link. http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=1586943

gjwalsh · 11-05-2010, 12:05 PM

Thanks ... a very thorough and informative response.

Much appreciated.

Seems that Apache has included support for gnutls beginning with 2.12.12, which would have been just after your work in patching and building from source.

Currently we are running 2.12.17, and our distro provides apache-mod_gnutls. While editing the browser's config file, and following apache's documented examples for virtual hosting on port 443, I noted certificates were apparently maintained in a directory other the /etc/pki/ and I did not know if that would have negated openssl usage or not.

So ... I have removed apache-mod_ssl in favor of mod_gnutls, see if I can get the server up and running with these changes tonight when I am least likely to provoke others.

Again, thanks for sharing your experience with me.

George