4 ms·

> Are these signed with some sort of crypto and known-good keys, similar to package signing keys attached to a package repo, or are we taking Docker's word for

> Are these signed with some sort of crypto and known-good keys, similar to package signing keys attached to a package repo, or are we taking Docker's word for it? I'm not sure. You can find more information about them here[0]. > Is there a way to filter to "official" repositories only, or tell Docker to only fetch from a whitelist of repositories (so that private ones can be included)? I'm not sure about this either. It looks like Rancher and OpenShift support whitelisting registries, so this may have to be handled at a higher level. I believe you can always tell whether something being pulled from Docker Hub is official because it won't have a leading path component indicating the contributor (e.g. mwpmaybe/ruby:2.4-alpine is a non-official image whereas ruby:2.4-alpine is official). > the habit of casually importing images is still rampant This is just my two cents, but that seems like a policy problem, not a technology problem. Enforce a rule for your project/team/organization that containers have to use an official image, or a private image based on an official image. I do agree that a simple per-registry namespace whitelist would be a nice feature to have in dockerd. > a) still derived from some other upstream Dockerfile (must this file also be validated by Docker to qualify as an "official repo"?) I believe official images must be based on other official images. > b) a good example of the "brilliance" of the Dockerfile format I don't think it was ever meant to be brilliant, just simple. I'm definitely looking forward to the next generation of Dockerfile formats that ameliorate this issue and many others. > Is this "transparency" only the case on "official" images? As far as I can see Docker Hub just stores the pushed binary blob and not the Dockerfile required to build it, so if you're not picking your image base carefully, there may not be a way to verify its contents (short of introspecting the image). I believe so. This is a complaint I have with Docker Hub. I personally feel that the Dockerfiles used to create public images should always be published along with the images. 0. https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/official_repos/ https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/official_repos/

cookiecaper 10y ago
>This is just my two cents, but that seems like a policy problem, not a technology problem. Software that makes dangerous things too easy is a technology problem. This is why Linux distros require signed packages by default. Furthermore, one of Docker's popular appeals is "never get stuck in dependency hell again: just install someone's container!" You see more and more projects saying "The best way to install this is just to use our Docker container." The culture is definitely not leading to a security-minded perspective. Compare with something like Ansible Playbooks, where the commands executed are always visible. >I don't think it was ever meant to be brilliant, just simple. Requiring long continuations for reasonable image sizes is not simple. Without the continuations, final image sizes regularly bloat to be larger than a typical distro ISO. On the other hand, exchanging the cached layers for size nullifies some of Docker's claimed value, specifically wrt atomicity and build time.
- mwpmaybe 10y ago
  > Requiring long continuations for reasonable image sizes is not simple. We're just arguing semantics at this point. I mean "simple" like Assembler is simple: rudimentary instructions requiring a certain amount of understanding and sophistication to wield correctly. Not "simple" as in easy, intuitive, and footgun-free.

cookiecaper 10y ago

>This is just my two cents, but that seems like a policy problem, not a technology problem. Software that makes dangerous things too easy is a technology problem. This is why Linux distros require signed packages by default. Furthermore, one of Docker's popular appeals is "never get stuck in dependency hell again: just install someone's container!" You see more and more projects saying "The best way to install this is just to use our Docker container." The culture is definitely not leading to a security-minded perspective. Compare with something like Ansible Playbooks, where the commands executed are always visible. >I don't think it was ever meant to be brilliant, just simple. Requiring long continuations for reasonable image sizes is not simple. Without the continuations, final image sizes regularly bloat to be larger than a typical distro ISO. On the other hand, exchanging the cached layers for size nullifies some of Docker's claimed value, specifically wrt atomicity and build time.

mwpmaybe 10y ago
> Requiring long continuations for reasonable image sizes is not simple. We're just arguing semantics at this point. I mean "simple" like Assembler is simple: rudimentary instructions requiring a certain amount of understanding and sophistication to wield correctly. Not "simple" as in easy, intuitive, and footgun-free.