| Author | Message | 
		
		  | withKappa | 
			  
				|  Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:12 am    Post subject: |   |  | 
		
		  | Novice
 
 
 Joined: 01 Jan 2012Posts: 11
 
 
 | 
			  
				| 
   
	| mqjeff wrote: |  
	| 
 The only way to identify which key in a given keystore is presented by an application is using the *label* of the certificate, not the distinguished name.  This is the label you have generated like ibmwebspheremquser_test.
 |  
 ok, are you saying that the clientes identify the certs by the label (ibmwebspheremquser_test) and not by the DN?
 
 Thx,
 
 Mark
 |  | 
		
		  | Back to top |  | 
		
		  |  | 
		
		  | exerk | 
			  
				|  Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:41 am    Post subject: |   |  | 
		
		  |  Jedi Council
 
 
 Joined: 02 Nov 2006Posts: 6339
 
 
 | 
			  
				| 
   
	| withKappa wrote: |  
	| 
   
	| mqjeff wrote: |  
	| 
 The only way to identify which key in a given keystore is presented by an application is using the *label* of the certificate, not the distinguished name.  This is the label you have generated like ibmwebspheremquser_test.
 |  
 ok, are you saying that the clientes identify the certs by the label (ibmwebspheremquser_test) and not by the DN?
 |  The default behaviour for clients is to use the certificate bearing their name, e.g. if the client runs under a user named mytestuser it will expect a certificate with the label of ibmwebspheremqmytestuser, and if it's not found, SSL fails. I don't know if that's true of Java (I'm decidedly shaky on anything Java related, but someone more enlightened will be along to confirm/refute soon I'm sure) but out of habit, and to maintain uniformity, I have always used the prescribed convention when working with JKS key stores.
 _________________
 It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys.
 |  | 
		
		  | Back to top |  | 
		
		  |  | 
		
		  | withKappa | 
			  
				|  Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:08 am    Post subject: |   |  | 
		
		  | Novice
 
 
 Joined: 01 Jan 2012Posts: 11
 
 
 | 
			  
				| 
   
	| exerk wrote: |  
	| The default behaviour for clients is to use the certificate bearing their name, e.g. if the client runs under a user named mytestuser it will expect a certificate with the label of ibmwebspheremqmytestuser, and if it's not found, SSL fails. I don't know if that's true of Java (I'm decidedly shaky on anything Java related, but someone more enlightened will be along to confirm/refute soon I'm sure) but out of habit, and to maintain uniformity, I have always used the prescribed convention when working with JKS key stores.
 |  
 ok perfect
 
 thx
 Mark
 |  | 
		
		  | Back to top |  | 
		
		  |  | 
		
		  | fjb_saper | 
			  
				|  Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:19 am    Post subject: |   |  | 
		
		  |  Grand High Poobah
 
 
 Joined: 18 Nov 2003Posts: 20767
 Location: LI,NY
 
 | 
			  
				| 
   
	| exerk wrote: |  
	| The default behaviour for clients is to use the certificate bearing their name, e.g. if the client runs under a user named mytestuser it will expect a certificate with the label of ibmwebspheremqmytestuser, and if it's not found, SSL fails. I don't know if that's true of Java (I'm decidedly shaky on anything Java related, but someone more enlightened will be along to confirm/refute soon I'm sure) but out of habit, and to maintain uniformity, I have always used the prescribed convention when working with JKS key stores.
 |  
 Mostly... not quite.
 I believe the rule goes more like
 If the client runs under a user named mytestuser it will expect a certificate label of ibmwebspheremqmytestuser. If it is not found it will attempt to use the default certificate. If no default certificate is found SSL will fail...
  _________________
 MQ & Broker admin
 |  | 
		
		  | Back to top |  | 
		
		  |  | 
		
		  | exerk | 
			  
				|  Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:32 am    Post subject: |   |  | 
		
		  |  Jedi Council
 
 
 Joined: 02 Nov 2006Posts: 6339
 
 
 | 
			  
				| 
   
	| fjb_saper wrote: |  
	| 
   
	| exerk wrote: |  
	| The default behaviour for clients is to use the certificate bearing their name, e.g. if the client runs under a user named mytestuser it will expect a certificate with the label of ibmwebspheremqmytestuser, and if it's not found, SSL fails. I don't know if that's true of Java (I'm decidedly shaky on anything Java related, but someone more enlightened will be along to confirm/refute soon I'm sure) but out of habit, and to maintain uniformity, I have always used the prescribed convention when working with JKS key stores.
 |  
 Mostly... not quite.
 I believe the rule goes more like
 If the client runs under a user named mytestuser it will expect a certificate label of ibmwebspheremqmytestuser. If it is not found it will attempt to use the default certificate. If no default certificate is found SSL will fail...
  |  Thank you for the clarification - I wasn't sure whether the rule applied to Java clients; for some reason I had it in the back of my head that they could use any certificate they wanted or found in the key store.
 _________________
 It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys.
 |  | 
		
		  | Back to top |  | 
		
		  |  | 
		
		  | fjb_saper | 
			  
				|  Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:39 am    Post subject: |   |  | 
		
		  |  Grand High Poobah
 
 
 Joined: 18 Nov 2003Posts: 20767
 Location: LI,NY
 
 | 
			  
				| 
   
	| exerk wrote: |  
	| Thank you for the clarification - I wasn't sure whether the rule applied to Java clients; for some reason I had it in the back of my head that they could use any certificate they wanted or found in the key store. |  
 Sorry I wasn't specific. I believe you're right for Java. The rule I wanted to clarify was for the cms type store.
  _________________
 MQ & Broker admin
 |  | 
		
		  | Back to top |  | 
		
		  |  | 
		
		  | PeterPotkay | 
			  
				|  Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:48 pm    Post subject: |   |  | 
		
		  |  Poobah
 
 
 Joined: 15 May 2001Posts: 7723
 
 
 |  | 
		
		  | Back to top |  | 
		
		  |  | 
		
		  | fjb_saper | 
			  
				|  Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:43 pm    Post subject: |   |  | 
		
		  |  Grand High Poobah
 
 
 Joined: 18 Nov 2003Posts: 20767
 Location: LI,NY
 
 | 
			  
				| Thanks for the authorative document Peter.  _________________
 MQ & Broker admin
 |  | 
		
		  | Back to top |  | 
		
		  |  | 
		
		  | withKappa | 
			  
				|  Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:21 am    Post subject: |   |  | 
		
		  | Novice
 
 
 Joined: 01 Jan 2012Posts: 11
 
 
 | 
			  
				| ok thx to all  . If I have other questions I will post here again.
 
 Mark
 |  | 
		
		  | Back to top |  | 
		
		  |  | 
		
		  |  |