4 ms·

It would be fairer to say they weren't initially trying to provide a security layer. More like an alternative packaging system that was distro independent. The

It would be fairer to say they weren't initially trying to provide a security layer. More like an alternative packaging system that was distro independent. The idea was that such a packaged system should be doing all the security things you'd do if running on the bare operating system. So getting root inside a container would be expected to be as devastating as if the host had been compromised. Admittedly many developers didn't get this memo in the beginning.

rtempaccount1 7y ago
So the Docker security team did a lot of work in the early days precisely because people felt that it didn't provide good security isolation. As to root in a container == host compromise, what makes you say that? Absent a Linux kernel vuln. or mistake when running the container that's generally not easily possible. (that's not to say that containers should be run as root, they should not, but that it's not necessarily trivial to breakout of one)
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  Aye they did a lot of work after people responded to its lack of isolation. My point was that was not a focus initially.
  - o-__-o 7y ago
    I remember the days of docker security check and it was just a hollow stub for future improvement.
Thaxll 7y ago
Root in a container is not unsecure, the user mapping is different between what runs the container and what's running inside.
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  Again, I was talking about Docker's initial security considerations. I think it wasn't until about 1.10(?) that it got user namespacing.
- supermanfan 7y ago
  No, actually UID=0 in the container is the same root as the host. By default there is no user mapping.