This community is for technical, feature, configuration and deployment questions.
For production deployment issues, please contact the TAC! We will not comment or assist with your TAC case in these forums.
Please see How to Ask the Community for Help for other best practices.
Does anyone have any experience with Publicly signed ID certificates for ISE.
We are going to be deploying Guest Services via CWA. When a user connects to the portal they get a certificate error as the current ID certificates are only signed by our internal CA and nobody but internal users will have that CA installed.
I went to an external provider (Geotrust) and wanted to get a Public CA signed Certificate with the CN = guestportal.company.com and SAN fields of internalserver.company.local.lcl, Private IP of BOX and External IP of Box. I get this Error from Geotrust.
Researching further into this it seems that all Certificates being issued by Public CA’s need to abide by the following new rules.
“What is an Internal Name?
An internal name is a domain or IP address that is part of a private network. Common examples of internal names are:
Any server name with a non-public domain name suffix. For example, www.contoso.local or server1.contoso.internal.
NetBIOS names or short hostnames, anything without a public domain. For example, Web1, ExchCAS1, or Frodo.
Any IPv4 address in the RFC 1918 range.
Any IPv6 address in the RFC 4193 range.”
Has anyone got around this? Or will the guests just have to put up with the Certificate error? Also I'll have to change the PSN's hostname to the CN which has implications for it joining our internal active directory so not keen on that.
I've ready that LDAP might be my only solution which I am not really keen on see below.
Solved! Go to Solution.
This requirement by public providers is a pain but a reality I suppose. In terms of your concerns I have deployed this many times without drama (ISE 1.2)
Internal name refers to a private domain name eg internaldomain.local whereas public is your publicdomain.com.au
Joining AD - Never had a problem with the PSN been on a "different" domain ie public FQDN vs internal FQDN. Just join the box to AD as you would normally. For intents and purposes the FQDN of the policy node is pretty much portal related. If there is an internal standards issue then you could always use the host alias functionality on another NIC so you can leave the primary hostname of the PSN alone and make a specific interface serve up a portal on a host-alias:
The biggest issue I encounter with all of this is my clients having to resolve an "internal" host to a public FQDN. The issue is not technical generally but people generally seem to hate the idea of an internal ip inside the network resolving to a public name (I might add it does not need to resolve externally).
In summary the solution will work.
I've changed my deployment to company.com instead of company.local now because of this. We have split DNS setup and haven't encountered a problem as yet although my lab is not in production as yet.
Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPad App
I've already started rolling this out in deployments. Here's what I have been doing:
With that solution, clients accessing the HTTPS portals for guest authentication, sponsor portal, or CWA do not receive a certificate warning and your internal domain computers to not receive a certificate warning for PEAP or EAP-TLS authentications.
I am more so thinking of a case where the ISE deployment was deployed with a public domain (ex: mydomain.com), but the customer wants to use their internal CA for EAP. So i would be requesting EAP certificates with a CN of PSN1.mydomain.com but on a CA in the domain.local domain.
I have run into he same situation with public CAs. I need two separate certs, a public https one and an internal EAP one, each on a different domain. Is this possible? if so how do you generate the certs for two different domains? The public one is straight ford as it will have the correct domain on configure on the ISE node. However for the EAP cert how will an internal PKI react to a CSR generated by a box on a different domain?
Recently I had a conversation with the TAC engineer. And the outcome seemed positive. The outcome from that conversation was the following:
- Https wild card certificate from Public issuer with example.org.au
- CLI change on ISE nodes to change their domain to org.au
- The company DNS must be able to resolve the ISE FQDN node names with example.org.au. For example - ISE01.example.org.au.
- The EAP certificate can be issued from the legacy Corporate PKI with a domain of example.local
However in a response to the same question the account team have said:
In response to checking if ISE can deployed with multiple domain certificates such as for http management on example.org and EAP on example.internal.org
The reason why this is not possible is because for installing a certificate in ISE you need to pass few conditions -
"Cisco ISE checks for a matching subject name as follows:
1.Cisco ISE looks at the subject alternative name (SAN) extension of the certificate. If the SAN contains one or more DNS names, then one of the DNS names must match the FQDN of the Cisco ISE node. If a wildcard certificate is used, then the wildcard domain name must match the domain in the Cisco ISE node’s FQDN.
2.If there are no DNS names in the SAN, or if the SAN is missing entirely, then the Common Name (CN) in the Subject field of the certificate or the wildcard domain in the Subject field of the certificate must match the FQDN of the node.
3.If no match is found, the certificate is rejected."
It sounds like you are trying to put two certs on the one box is that correct? 1 for HTTPs and one for EAP? If so I don't think you need too. Basically the server certificate can be used for both HTTPS (management portals etc) and for EAP. When the tick box for EAP is ticked you have to realise this isn't been used for the AAA component but to secure the tunnel for the AAA stuff. In terms of authenticating the actual user certificates you basically need to have the issuing roots and subs in the cert store with trust for EAP enabled.
Correct two certs. The reason is the public CA's won't sign a wildcard .local cert anymore. Our client has a .local internal domain for users, AD etc. so I need a eap cert for .local generated from their PKI and separate public signed cert example.org domain for http cert.
If this combination is not possible I will use a cert with lots of SAN entries as the public CA's will still do these.
Is this a distributed deployment? In all my deployments I am using either a wildcard/SAN public certificate for my PSNs and using internal PKI for the admin and monitoring. Bascially the PSNs have a public domain name and the admin and monitoring have an internal domain name.
Bascially what I am getting at is there is no requirement for an internal server certificate on the PSN to support EAP connections from an internal domain - the public server cert will do the job just fine - all you have to do is make sure the issuing servers are selected if you are validating the server certificate on the clinet machine. The server certificate itself is utilised to create a tunnel and does not impact the ability of a client to authenticate.
If I am not understanding your concern my apologies.
FYI, please check these possible conditions, due to these condition this issue can occur:
Check if the Active Directory configuration in the Admin portal is correct.
The supplicant or client machine is not accepting the certificate from Cisco ISE.
The client machine is configured to validate the server certificate, but is not configured to trust the Cisco ISE certificate.
The client machine must accept the Cisco ISE certificate to enable authentication.
This issue can apply to any expired certificates on Cisco ISE.
Your Cisco ISE certificate is about to expire or has expired.
1. OCSP but sending ISE certificate to identity ISE via HTTPS.
2. LDAP but sending a user/pass to identify ISE. Can we add a user/pass on the LDAP URL?
As far as we know none of the above is currently supported in ISE, is this something that we are working on for future ISE releases?