4 ms·
If I were going to attempt such an .onion hosting setup, I'd use a couple levels of isolation between users. Maybe setup several KVM domains, to help limit dama
by mirimir 8y ago
If I were going to attempt such an .onion hosting setup, I'd use a couple levels of isolation between users. Maybe setup several KVM domains, to help limit damage from a compromise. And within each domain, put each website in a Docker container. Given a custom Docker-optimized kernel for the host, and XFS storage, I gather that it's possible to set hard limits on CPU, RAM and storage for containers.
Given that Docker containers rely on kernel namespaces and cgroups for isolation, they're not as secure as using full VMs. But they're far lighter, and much better isolated than these late .onions. Alternatively, one could maybe use FreeBSD jails with Docker.
And about backups. I get his argument for not backing up. But maybe a setup with relatively fast rotation, and thorough deletion of old backups, would be secure enough. I'd use LUKS with dropbear for server FDE. That's still vulnerable, sure, but attackers would need to take some care while impounding the server. Also, I'd keep backups on another server, with only .onion-.onion connections (maybe OnionCat).
- xena 8y agoWhat's stopping you from writing this then?
- mirimir 8y agoWriting? Do you mean implementing? Basically, the prospect of managing thousands of accounts doesn't appeal to me.
- krageon 8y agoContainers are not at all a security thing. If you really need that caliber of separation, you are looking at VMs at the very least.
- mirimir 8y agoReally "not at all"? Isn't that more secure than chroot? I do agree with you that VMs, at least, would be more secure. But hosting thousands of VMs takes substantial resources. And when there's free shared hosting available, few would understand enough to pay the premium.