Kubernetes CRL support with the front-proxy-client and Haproxy

Kubernetes CRL support with the front-proxy-client and Haproxy

  • Written by
    Alex Boonstra
  • Published on

“Why does kube-apiserver not take a CRL file?”

Kubernetes clusters at OSSO are usually setup using PKI infrastructure from which we create client certificates for users as well.

Unfortunately, users can sometimes be a little careless [citation needed] and sometimes they manage to share their keys with the world. PKI caters for lost certificates through the issuance of periodic (or ad-hoc) Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs), in which the PKI admins can place certificates that have been compromised: if a certificate is listed in the CRL, it is revoked, and will not be accepted by the TLS agent.

At the moment of writing, there is no support for CRL or for its cousin OSCP in Kubernetes. There are plenty of requests for this feature, but since 2015, nothing concrete has emerged.

For our infrastructure, which relies heavily on client certificates, operating without the possibility to revoke them was not an option anymore.

There is one possible workaround: reconfiguring RBAC rules, making sure that user (CN) and group (O) have no role bindings anymore. But that disallows reuse of the same commonName when the user “lost” their certificate and simply wants a new one.

No, we want CRLs.

CRL by support using Haproxy

There are applications available that do support CRL. One of these is Haproxy, a tool we already use in our setups. Haproxy can work as a TCP proxy, transparently forwarding the TLS. Or it can terminate TLS traffic. For our purposes the TLS proxy is perfect, because it can verify the validity of certificates (ca-file) and check them against the CRL (crl-file). If the certificate is invalid or revoked, the TLS handshake aborts.

Using the Kubernetes Aggregation Layer

Using a TLS proxy creates one problem: Haproxy does not have the original client’s key. So it cannot connect to the kube-apiserver using their credentials. This means that the kube-apiserver will not recognise the user – “Hey it’s John!” – but will recognise Haproxy – “You again? You seem to be the only one that talks to me.”

For Haproxy it would be pointless to have RBAC rules: everyone would get the same permissions. To work around this we can reuse the Kubernetes Aggregation Layer setup:

We let Haproxy reuse the front-proxy-client client certificate when forwarding the requests to Kubernetes. Haproxy extracts the user (CN) and group (O) from the supplied client certificates and puts them in request headers X-Remote-{User,Group} before forwarding the request to the Kubernetes apiserver. Kubernetes is then able to authenticate and authorize the request using RBAC.

The Kubernetes Aggregation Layer uses the same mechanism: its trusted certificate is allowed to “impersonate” another user. It can call back to the Kubernetes apiserver with requests authorized as the original user.


For our Haproxy setup, things look like this:

Setting it up

The following certificates are reused:

file description
/etc/​kubernetes/​pki/​ca.crt One or more (intermediate) certificates that have signed client certificates (--etcd-cafile= and --client-ca-file= kube-apiserver options).
/etc/​kubernetes/​pki/​apiserver.pem Private key and Kubernetes apiserver certificate (concatenated), signed by the CA from /etc/kubernetes/pki/ca.crt (kube-apiserver gets them as --tls-private-key-file= and --tls-cert-file=).
/etc/​kubernetes/​pki/​crl.pem The certificate revocations. One CRL for each CA in ca.crt.
/etc/​kubernetes/​pki/​front-proxy-client.pem Holds the privkey and cert for the front-proxy-client, signed by the CA defined in /etc/kubernetes/pki/front-proxy-ca.crt. Required to trust headers in forwarded requests from haproxy to the Kubernetes apiserver.

OBSERVE: Haproxy mandates that there is a CRL for every CA in ca.crt.

The kube-apiserver options used/altered:


We make sure the Kubernetes apiserver is bound to to prevent bypassing the authenticating proxy (and in doing so bypassing the CRL checks).

requestheader-allowed-names is used to limit the CN to the value front-proxy-client and not allowing other CN’s.

The Haproxy configuration:


listen api-in
    bind ssl crt /etc/kubernetes/pki/apiserver.crt verify optional ca-file /etc/kubernetes/pki/ca-int.crt ca-verify-file /etc/kubernetes/pki/ca.crt crl-file /etc/kubernetes/pki/crl.pem
    mode http
    http-request set-header X-Remote-User %{+Q}[ssl_c_s_dn(CN)]
    http-request set-header X-Remote-Group %{+Q}[ssl_c_s_dn(O)]
    default-server check ssl verify required ca-file /etc/kubernetes/pki/ca.crt crt /etc/kubernetes/pki/front-proxy-client.crt

This is now the main entry point for all Kubernetes apiserver traffic. This means that users, but also applications like kubelet and kube-proxy will use this endpoint for accessing the API.

The Kubernetes apiserver runs on Haproxy runs on the host IP ( on port 6443. This way we can use Haproxy as drop in replacement for API access.

Does it work?

Using a revoked certificate:

$ kubectl get nodes
Unable to connect to the server: remote error: tls: revoked certificate

Using a valid certificate:

$ kubectl get nodes
NAME                        STATUS   ROLES   AGE   VERSION
node1.jedi.dostno.systems   Ready    zl      44d   v1.24.8

Known backdoor(s)?

This setup prevents almost all possibilities to directly connect to the apiserver from, let’s say, a Kubernetes pod. All incoming traffic ends up at Haproxy running on the control plane nodes.

There is one obvious exception: a pod with host networking. When pods are spawned with host networking they get the same network as the host. And thus direct access to the apiserver at To prevent this you could implement some policies. Kyverno is quite a useful tool for this.

On the other hand, you should take extra care with host networking pods anyway. If revoked certificates are getting through there, you probably have bigger issues…

Back to overview Newer post: windows openvpn / unexpected default route Older post: django 1.8 / python 3.10