Re: OpenVPN - DEPRECATED OPTION: --tls-remote

[Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2090 bytes --]

Hi Erik,

On Tue, 2014-07-29 at 20:05 +0200, ummeegge wrote:
> Hi all,
> since the update to OpenVPN version 2.3 on IPFire the client log
> message "DEPRECATED OPTION: --tls-remote, please update your
> configuration" appears. so the clientside directive "--tls-remote"
> will be removed from OpenVPN in one of the comming versions -->
> https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/Openvpn23ManPage . For
> future updates of OpenVPN on IPFire (2.4+) it will be important to
> modify existing client.ovpn´s and replace the "--tls-remote name" with
> the new "--verify-x509-name name type" directive.

Yes, we should do this at some point. The question that is currently on
my mind is if that is completely backwards-compatible with all
installations that we do have out there.

> Since OpenVPN client/server version 2.3.2 the new verify option can be
> used in client configs whereby "type" includes the possibilty of 3
> different kinds of verification --> "subject", "name" and
> "name-prefix" . This leads to a question which one of the "types"
> should be used for future versions on IPFire. 
> At this time IPFire handles "--tls-remote" automatically and it can´t
> be configured over the WUI, this is handy cause the user doesn´t need
> to bother around with all that kind of settings, but should this
> remain in that way also for the new verification method ?

This should not be configurable for the user, because I cannot see the
point right now. It should stay compatible to what we are doing at the
moment.

> Also, to use "--verify-x509-name" the clients needs to have a version
> >= 2.3.2 otherwise the connection won´t come up so there is no
> backwards compatibility with the new directive and version =< 2.3.1 .

This is my biggest concern as there might be many systems that run old
versions.

> May some people out there have some ideas, informations, ...., for
> this topic ?

Not really as far as we can see. Would you please update the code for
this and send patches when you have the time for it?

> Anyway a discussion about that might be interesting.

-Michael