Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

sap_swpm: sapinst now requires online verification of certficate revocation list (CRL) resulting in failure #946

Open
rob0d opened this issue Jan 29, 2025 · 1 comment
Assignees

Comments

@rob0d
Copy link
Contributor

rob0d commented Jan 29, 2025

Hi All,

Hot off the press :). As of last week all versions of SWPM (released after 10/1/25) which are based on 753.0.10 framework perform a mandatory CRL check by getting the revocation list from https://tcs.mysap.com/crl/crlbag.p7s . In most cases the server we are installing SAP on will NOT have internet access. In previous version this was ignored, but as of now this leads to a fatal installation error.
Note 3207613 (point 5) explains the behaviour.
As a workaround I have downloaded the CRL into a central location and created symlinks to it from /root/.sapinst/crlbag.p7s, but a more sensible and systematic solution is required.
As per the note there are several different properties can be set:
SAPINST_CRL_SOURCE_URL= - for custom locally accessible URL to CRL
SAPINST_CRL_PATH= - for custom location on the local filesystem (instead of /root/.sapinst/crlbag.p7s)
SAPINST_ENFORCE_CRL=false - which will completely disable the CRL check. This is obviously discouraged by SAP.
In addition an environment variable HTTPS_PROXY can be set which will make SWPM/sapinst use the proxy to get the CRL file.

So now we have 4 new options and 5 different behaviours which need to be taken care of

  1. Get CRL from default location (Default behaviour). With or without a proxy
  2. Get CRL from custom URL. With or without proxy
  3. Get CRL from a local file
  4. Ignore CRL checks

I'm happy to write some code and possibly test it, but I am wondering if you guys have a view how this should be handled. Create three mutually exclusive parameters + a control parameter + https_proxy parameter? Something else?

@berndfinger berndfinger self-assigned this Feb 5, 2025
@berndfinger
Copy link
Member

Hi @rob0d - Thanks for raising this. I will soon run some tests.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants