8 ms·

Beware that VMs are not necessarily secure. They can be escaped!

dave2000 11y ago
Sure, in theory. Are there any current exploits for VirtualBox? The way I see it, they're more secure that running the same apps on bare metal. Ubuntu host running a Fedora VM; the latter (with Transmission etc) only running when I need the apps running - seems an almost entirely painless way of providing a lot of security.
- nevir 11y ago
  Unsure if there are any currently publicly known exploits, but it sure isn't unheard of for VirtualBox: * http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/05/extremely-serious-virtual-machine-bug-threatens-cloud-providers-everywhere/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/05/extremely-serious-vi... * http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/495095 http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/495095 * https://www.cert.be/advisories/oracle-vm-virtualbox-two-privilege-escalation-vulnerabilities https://www.cert.be/advisories/oracle-vm-virtualbox-two-priv... * http://www.coresecurity.com/content/virtualbox-privilege-escalation-vulnerability http://www.coresecurity.com/content/virtualbox-privilege-esc...
  - startling 11y ago
    "Requires a 0-day" is still a huge barrier. It's not 100% secure, sure, but it's an improvement.
    - nevir 11y ago
      Yeah, not arguing that. Just don't treat it like a panacea
- brians 11y ago
  Yes! Some reliable ways to extract an RSA key, and some less reliable ways to swap two cache lines. Virtualization on x86 is a helpful tool for configuration management, but should not be mistaken for a security feature.
digi_owl 11y ago
More secure than without though. Lets try to avoid treating security as something binary.
nikanj 11y ago
This argument is similar to "a condom can always break". Technically you are correct, but I'd still use one.
- conradev 11y ago
  Which is the entire premise behind Qubes: https://www.qubes-os.org https://www.qubes-os.org
- feld 11y ago
  This argument is only similar if the condom is known to have huge design flaws VMs have tons of well documented issues. If you want a smaller attack surface, try OS virtualization technologies (zones/jails)
  - lawnchair_larry 11y ago
    This makes no sense. VMs are by far the most secure form of isolation. No one is going to get infected with malware that escapes VMs - it is far too valuable.
    - feld 11y ago
      How can you honestly think VMs are the most secure form of isolation?
b1460151 11y ago
Yes but if you run a compromised App in VM A and have your sensitive data in VM B then they have to break out of the VM A and then break into VM B. It's no longer worth the effort. There are often easier ways like phising.

dave2000 11y ago

Sure, in theory. Are there any current exploits for VirtualBox? The way I see it, they're more secure that running the same apps on bare metal. Ubuntu host running a Fedora VM; the latter (with Transmission etc) only running when I need the apps running - seems an almost entirely painless way of providing a lot of security.

nevir 11y ago
Unsure if there are any currently publicly known exploits, but it sure isn't unheard of for VirtualBox: * http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/05/extremely-serious-virtual-machine-bug-threatens-cloud-providers-everywhere/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/05/extremely-serious-vi... * http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/495095 http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/495095 * https://www.cert.be/advisories/oracle-vm-virtualbox-two-privilege-escalation-vulnerabilities https://www.cert.be/advisories/oracle-vm-virtualbox-two-priv... * http://www.coresecurity.com/content/virtualbox-privilege-escalation-vulnerability http://www.coresecurity.com/content/virtualbox-privilege-esc...
- startling 11y ago
  "Requires a 0-day" is still a huge barrier. It's not 100% secure, sure, but it's an improvement.
  - nevir 11y ago
    Yeah, not arguing that. Just don't treat it like a panacea
brians 11y ago
Yes! Some reliable ways to extract an RSA key, and some less reliable ways to swap two cache lines. Virtualization on x86 is a helpful tool for configuration management, but should not be mistaken for a security feature.

digi_owl 11y ago

More secure than without though. Lets try to avoid treating security as something binary.

nikanj 11y ago

This argument is similar to "a condom can always break". Technically you are correct, but I'd still use one.

conradev 11y ago
Which is the entire premise behind Qubes: https://www.qubes-os.org https://www.qubes-os.org
feld 11y ago
This argument is only similar if the condom is known to have huge design flaws VMs have tons of well documented issues. If you want a smaller attack surface, try OS virtualization technologies (zones/jails)
- lawnchair_larry 11y ago
  This makes no sense. VMs are by far the most secure form of isolation. No one is going to get infected with malware that escapes VMs - it is far too valuable.
  - feld 11y ago
    How can you honestly think VMs are the most secure form of isolation?

b1460151 11y ago

Yes but if you run a compromised App in VM A and have your sensitive data in VM B then they have to break out of the VM A and then break into VM B. It's no longer worth the effort. There are often easier ways like phising.