Files
certctl/docs/operator/legacy-clients-tls-1.2.md
T
shankar0123 7c134d0575 docs: retire compliance subtree + sweep framework name-drops from prose
Per operator decision the framework-mapping docs are gone. They
were aspirational (no audit, no certification, no validated
mapping); keeping them around was misleading.

Files deleted (1,883 lines):
- docs/compliance/index.md
- docs/compliance/soc2.md
- docs/compliance/pci-dss.md
- docs/compliance/nist-sp-800-57.md

Hyperlinks removed:
- README.md: 'Auditor / compliance' row in the doc table; the
  '(compliance mapping included)' parenthetical in the
  positioning paragraph
- docs/README.md: the '## Compliance' section table; the
  'Auditor / compliance team' reading-order-by-role row

Prose name-drops swept across 24 files:
- README.md: 'FedRAMP boundary CAs / financial-services policy
  CAs' → '4-level boundary CAs / 3-level policy CAs';
  'Compliance-grade for PCI-DSS Level 1, FedRAMP Moderate / High,
  SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA' → cut entirely
- getting-started/{quickstart,concepts,examples,why-certctl,
  advanced-demo}.md: 'compliance' → 'audit' / 'policy';
  'PCI-DSS / SOC 2 / NIST SP 800-57' framework lists cut;
  ''pci': 'true'' tag example → ''environment': 'production''
- migration/cert-manager-coexistence.md: 'compliance rules' →
  'policy rules'
- operator/approval-workflow.md: 'Compliance customers (PCI-DSS
  Level 1, FedRAMP Moderate / High, SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA)' →
  'Operators'; entire 'Compliance control mapping' table
  (PCI-DSS §6.4.5 / NIST SP 800-53 SA-15 / SOC 2 Type II CC6.1
  / HIPAA §164.308(a)(4)) deleted; 'compliance contract' →
  'two-person-integrity contract'; 'compliance auditors' →
  'reviewers'
- operator/legacy-clients-tls-1.2.md: 'PCI-DSS v4.0 Req 4 §2.2.5'
  audit-reference → CWE-326 (kept); 'PCI-DSS Req 4 §2.2.5
  attestation' section retitled to 'TLS posture summary' and
  rewritten without framework framing; 'PCI-DSS, NIST, and
  major browsers will eventually deprecate TLS 1.2' →
  'Major browsers and OS vendors will eventually deprecate
  TLS 1.2'
- operator/database-tls.md: PCI-DSS Req 4 §2.2.5 audit-ref →
  CWE-319 only; 'PCI-DSS scope' → 'sensitive data'; PCI-DSS
  Req 4 v4.0 prose footing → cut
- operator/runbooks/disaster-recovery.md: 'SOC 2 / PCI
  procurement-team deliverable' → 'on-call deliverable';
  'compliance auditors' → 'reviewers'
- reference/connectors/{acme,aws-acm,azure-kv,globalsign,
  local-ca,openssl,ssh,index}.md: 'compliance reporting
  (PCI-DSS §3.6, HIPAA §164.312)' → 'audit reporting';
  'Compliance environments (PCI-DSS Level 1, FedRAMP High,
  HIPAA)' → 'Regulated environments'; 'compliance audits' →
  'audit'; 'FedRAMP boundary CA' pattern names →
  '4-level boundary CA' (technically descriptive)
- reference/protocols/est.md: 'compliance-hook seam' →
  'device-state hook seam'; 'compliance gating' → 'device-state
  gating'; 'est_compliance_failed' → 'est_device_state_failed'
- reference/protocols/scep-intune.md: 'Optional compliance
  check' → 'Optional device-state check'; failure-counter
  'compliance_failed' → 'device_state_failed'; 'Conditional
  Access compliance gating' → 'Conditional Access
  device-state gating'
- reference/intermediate-ca-hierarchy.md: 'FedRAMP boundary-CA
  deployments where the regulator requires...' →
  'Boundary-CA deployments where you want separation of policy
  and issuing authorities'; pattern A retitled '4-level FedRAMP
  boundary CA' → '4-level boundary CA'
- reference/architecture.md: broken Related-docs link to
  compliance.md removed; the rest of that block had stale
  pre-Phase-2 paths (quickstart.md, demo-advanced.md,
  connectors.md, openapi.md, testing-guide.md, test-env.md) —
  retargeted to current locations
- reference/deployment-model.md: 'SOC 2 evidence-report
  generator' → 'Audit-evidence report generator'
- reference/vendor-matrix.md: 'SOC 2 / PCI auditors paste this
  into evidence packs' → 'reviewers paste this into
  vendor-evaluation packs'
- contributor/qa-test-suite.md: 'compliance exist' coverage
  description cut; 'Compliance (PCI / SOC2 / HIPAA-relevant)'
  risk-class label → 'Audit-relevant'

What was kept:
- CWE references (legitimate technical pointers)
- Microsoft API/feature names that happen to use 'compliance'
  literally ('Microsoft Graph compliance API',
  'device-compliance validators' — these are MS product names,
  not framework name-drops)
- 'NIST PQC' on the landing page (Post-Quantum Cryptography is
  the actual NIST standard family, not a compliance framework)

Verified: zero hyperlinks into docs/compliance/ remain. All 24
ci-guards/*.sh pass locally. qa-doc-seed-count.sh clean.
Net diff: 26 files / -1,883 deletions in compliance/ + -32 net
across the prose sweep.

Companion edits in cowork/ (CLAUDE.md doc-tree summary +
WORKSPACE-CHANGELOG.md retirement note) land separately.
2026-05-05 05:26:44 +00:00

210 lines
9.0 KiB
Markdown

# Legacy Clients (TLS 1.2) — Reverse-Proxy Runbook
> Last reviewed: 2026-05-05
**Audit reference:** Bundle F / M-023. CWE-326 (Inadequate encryption strength).
## What this is
certctl's control plane pins `tls.Config.MinVersion = tls.VersionTLS13`
(`cmd/server/tls.go:131`). Some embedded EST (RFC 7030) and SCEP (RFC 8894)
clients only speak TLS 1.0/1.1/1.2 — those clients cannot complete the
handshake against certctl directly. This runbook documents the supported
operator pattern: terminate the legacy TLS version at a front-door reverse
proxy and pass the request through to certctl over TLS 1.3.
## Why TLS 1.3 minimum
certctl's audit posture and the M-001 PBKDF2 work factor both assume
modern transport crypto. TLS 1.2 with the cipher suites still in the
wild has known attack surface (BEAST, POODLE, ROBOT, raccoon — all
CVE-categorized); allowing TLS 1.2 directly on the certctl listener
would invalidate the guarantee that the server-side encryption chain
is the strongest the ecosystem currently supports.
## When this runbook applies
You need this if **all three** are true:
1. You operate certctl with EST or SCEP enabled (`CERTCTL_EST_ENABLED=true`
or `CERTCTL_SCEP_ENABLED=true`).
2. Your enrolling clients are embedded devices (printers, network
appliances, IoT boards, legacy MFPs, point-of-sale terminals) whose TLS
stack pre-dates 2018 and only speaks TLS 1.2 or older.
3. Replacing those clients is not feasible on a 6-month horizon.
If your enrolling clients are modern (any current Linux/Windows/macOS
host, anything Go-based, anything Rust/Python/Node from 2019 onward),
they speak TLS 1.3 natively and this runbook is unnecessary — point them
straight at certctl on `:8443`.
## Architecture
```mermaid
flowchart LR
Client["legacy EST/SCEP client"]
Proxy["nginx / HAProxy<br/>reverse proxy"]
Server["certctl :8443"]
Client -->|"TLS 1.2/1.3<br/>(allowed TLS 1.2)"| Proxy
Proxy -->|"TLS 1.3<br/>(re-encrypts as TLS 1.3)"| Server
```
The reverse proxy:
- Terminates the legacy-version TLS handshake on the public-facing port.
- Forwards the request to certctl over TLS 1.3 on a private network.
- (For EST mTLS) forwards the client certificate via an
`X-SSL-Client-Cert` header that certctl reads only when the connection
arrives from a configured-trusted source IP.
## nginx config
```nginx
upstream certctl_backend {
# Private-network address; not reachable from outside the proxy host.
server 10.0.0.10:8443;
}
server {
listen 443 ssl http2;
server_name est.example.com;
# Public-facing legacy listener. ssl_protocols includes TLSv1.2 explicitly.
# Keep ssl_ciphers conservative — only strong AEAD suites with forward
# secrecy.
ssl_certificate /etc/nginx/certs/est.example.com.fullchain.pem;
ssl_certificate_key /etc/nginx/certs/est.example.com.key;
ssl_protocols TLSv1.2 TLSv1.3;
ssl_ciphers ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305:ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256;
ssl_prefer_server_ciphers on;
# mTLS for EST: optional client cert, verified against the EST CA.
ssl_client_certificate /etc/nginx/certs/est-clients-ca.pem;
ssl_verify_client optional;
location ~ ^/\.well-known/(est|pki) {
# Forward the client cert (if presented) to certctl over the
# private hop. The current certctl implementation IGNORES the
# X-SSL-Client-Cert header (header-agnostic by default — see
# the certctl-side configuration section below). EST/SCEP
# authentication still works correctly because both protocols
# carry their own auth (CSR signature for EST, challengePassword
# for SCEP) inside the request body.
proxy_set_header X-SSL-Client-Cert $ssl_client_escaped_cert;
proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $remote_addr;
proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-Proto $scheme;
# The proxy-to-certctl hop is itself TLS 1.3.
proxy_pass https://certctl_backend;
proxy_ssl_protocols TLSv1.3;
proxy_ssl_verify on;
proxy_ssl_trusted_certificate /etc/nginx/certs/certctl-internal-ca.pem;
}
# SCEP endpoints — same pattern, no client-cert requirement
# (SCEP authenticates via challengePassword inside the CSR).
location ^~ /scep {
proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $remote_addr;
proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-Proto $scheme;
proxy_pass https://certctl_backend;
proxy_ssl_protocols TLSv1.3;
proxy_ssl_verify on;
proxy_ssl_trusted_certificate /etc/nginx/certs/certctl-internal-ca.pem;
}
}
```
## HAProxy config (alternative)
```
frontend est_legacy
bind *:443 ssl crt /etc/haproxy/certs/est.example.com.pem alpn h2,http/1.1 \
ssl-min-ver TLSv1.2 \
ciphers ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
acl is_est_path path_beg /.well-known/est
acl is_pki_path path_beg /.well-known/pki
acl is_scep_path path_beg /scep
use_backend certctl_backend if is_est_path or is_pki_path or is_scep_path
default_backend certctl_modern
backend certctl_backend
server certctl 10.0.0.10:8443 ssl verify required \
ca-file /etc/haproxy/certs/certctl-internal-ca.pem \
ssl-min-ver TLSv1.3
http-request set-header X-Forwarded-For %[src]
http-request set-header X-Forwarded-Proto https
```
## certctl-side configuration
The current implementation is **header-agnostic**: certctl ignores any
`X-SSL-Client-Cert` / `X-Forwarded-For` headers from the proxy. EST
authentication still happens via in-protocol CSR signature + profile
policy (RFC 7030 §3.2.3); SCEP authentication still happens via the
`challengePassword` attribute embedded in the CSR (RFC 8894 §3.2). Both
mechanisms are inside the request body and survive the reverse-proxy
hop without server-side header trust.
**Why this is the correct default:** trusting a proxy-supplied header
for client identity opens a header-spoofing attack surface that requires
careful design (CIDR allowlist of trusted proxies, fail-closed defaults,
explicit operator opt-in). The Bundle F closure of M-023 ships the
TLS-bridge guidance as documentation only; a future commit can extend
certctl with proxy-header trust if and when an operator demonstrates a
deployment shape that requires it. Until that lands, the runbook above
is operationally complete: legacy EST and SCEP clients continue to
authenticate via their in-protocol mechanisms, and the reverse proxy is
purely a TLS-version bridge.
If your deployment requires proxy-supplied client identity (e.g., the
proxy terminates mTLS and you want certctl to record the client-cert
subject in the audit trail beyond what the CSR carries), open an issue
and a future commit will add a header-trust contract behind two
fail-closed env vars: a CIDR allowlist of trusted proxies, plus an
explicit opt-in toggle. Both knobs would be required together; setting
only one would fail loud at startup. Until that work ships, the
header-agnostic default described above is the only supported
configuration.
## TLS posture summary
The configuration above:
- Pins TLS 1.2 + TLS 1.3 only (no SSLv3, TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1).
- Uses only AEAD cipher suites with forward secrecy (ECDHE-* with GCM or
ChaCha20-Poly1305).
- Re-encrypts to TLS 1.3 on the proxy-to-certctl hop so the certctl
listener never speaks anything below 1.3.
That is the strongest posture currently achievable while still allowing
the legacy clients to enroll. Reviewers looking for the attestation
should be pointed at this section + the proxy's TLS config.
## What this runbook does NOT cover
- **Replacing the legacy clients.** That's the long-term fix; this
runbook is the bridge while you're migrating.
- **Network segmentation.** The reverse proxy assumes the proxy-to-certctl
hop is on a network that an external attacker can't reach. If it's
not, you need a deeper architecture review.
- **Client-cert revocation.** EST mTLS revocation is the relying party's
responsibility. certctl's EST handler accepts the cert; the proxy can
enforce CRL/OCSP via `ssl_crl_path` (nginx) or `crl-file` (HAProxy).
## When TLS 1.2 itself sunsets
Major browsers and OS vendors will eventually deprecate TLS 1.2. When
that happens, this runbook becomes obsolete; the only path forward
will be to replace the legacy clients. Watch the IETF TLS working
group, the major browser vendors' announcement channels, and your
own embedded-device vendors for deprecation notices.
## Related docs
- [`docs/operator/tls.md`](tls.md) — the certctl-internal TLS configuration (HTTPS-only control plane, MinVersion pin)
- [`docs/operator/security.md`](security.md) — overall security posture
- [`docs/operator/database-tls.md`](database-tls.md) — Postgres TLS opt-in (Bundle B / M-018)
- [`docs/reference/protocols/scep-server.md`](../reference/protocols/scep-server.md) — SCEP RFC 8894 native server reference
- [`docs/reference/protocols/est.md`](../reference/protocols/est.md) — EST RFC 7030 server reference