amazon ec2 - How to configure my Elastic Load Balancer to balance SSL traffic?

I'm totally lost so I apologize if I'm not making sense.

I need to create a load balancer in EC2 for our application servers. I'm trying make the ELB balance traffic over SSL (8443). However, it's asking me for an SSL Certificate. It looks to be asking me for a public and private key (pem encoded).

The servers behind the ELB have a keystore file, which our developers created using Oracle Java's keytool program. The file created is binary. It looks like the ELB is expecting a text, pem formatted key.

Why does the ELB require me to enter a certificate? Can't the ELB just forward SSL traffic from one side to the other and let the servers handle SSL ?

Are certificates/keystore file related and the keys must match on both the ELB and servers? The AWS documents said to create a private key and certificate using openssl. Can I just independently run openssl to create a SSL certificate for the load balancer and leave the keystore file on the servers alone?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Answer

The advantage of doing SSL termination on your load balancer is that you relieve your back-end nodes of having to perform SSL encryption/decryption.

As such, just deploy your SSL private key and signed cert to the ELB. That will take care of SSL termination, and can then proxy traffic unencrypted to your back-end instances. If you want traffic between the ELB and your back-end instances to be encrypted, that's fine, but you will still need the ELB to have your private key and signed cert.

In regards to getting your certificates and keys out of the java keystore, that's certainly possible. This Q&A over on Stackoverflow has the details.

Comments

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able

Blog

Search This Blog