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

Compatibility with acme-vault #900

Open
xeroc opened this issue Sep 6, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Compatibility with acme-vault #900

xeroc opened this issue Sep 6, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@xeroc
Copy link

xeroc commented Sep 6, 2022

As per remilapeyre/vault-acme#34,
I would like to use fabio and acme-vault together to deal with letsencrypt certificates for loadbalancing and have vault deal with the certs through pki (e.g. acme-vault plugin).

However, the keys are different for when issuing certs. While this one is probably easy to get compatibility with, I wonder what is required to get these two wonderful projects talk more nicely with each other.

After all, I wonder how many people's needs this would satisfy.

Cheers,
-- Fabian

@nathanejohnson
Copy link
Member

We use vault for our fabio certificate stores. We have a homegrown set of scripts that handle renewals for now, but I have not yet looked into acme-vault. I will take a peek and learn a bit about this project and see what it might take to integrate the two.

@remilapeyre
Copy link

Hi @xeroc, as you already noticed vault-acme does not reproduce the API of the PKI engine. I first chose this because creating certificates with an ACME provider is quite different from using a builtin signer.

It turns out that this also makes vault-acme incompatible with all existing Vault integration which makes it less useful. I'm currently working to implement the full PKI api but this will take some time. I will try to implement what's needed for Fabio first so that you can test it.

aleksraiden added a commit to aleksraiden/fabio that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2024
feat: Compatibility with vault-acme (fixes fabiolb#900)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants