5 ms·

It takes 2 commandes to create a new LXC container and ssh into it, then I install the software inside the container

masklinn 7y ago
That's more secure than running straight on the machine but not completely secure, security was never a core goal of linux containers. You want to run the software properly sandboxed, since linux doesn't have really engineered OS-level solutions (à la Solaris) that means vm e.g. running in qemu, or biting the bullet and switching to qubes.
- Huggernaut 7y ago
  I think that's an extremely uncharitable view on containers. There has been a massive amount of work put into securing containers for a variety of use cases using both layers available and by adding to the kernel.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    > I think that's an extremely uncharitable view on containers. It's an objective one. > There has been a massive amount of work put into securing containers for a variety of use cases using both layers available and by adding to the kernel. That doesn't change the fact that security was never the primary goal for containers, so secure containers were and are a bunch of tricks, kludges and prayers being built up in the hope that eventually all the holes in the model will be patched. The "Making containers safer"[lwn][hn] talk was literally two days ago. Note how it says safer, not safe. [lwn] https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/796700/9bc9daa32a8fe499/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/796700/9bc9daa32a8fe499/ [hn] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20764355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20764355
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Of course it says safer, if someone tells you something is entirely safe you know they're lying.
    - roblabla 7y ago
      Can you please quote how containers are not built with security in mind? What would even be the point of user namespacing, network namespaces, filesystem namespaces, etc... if not security?
      - yters 7y ago
        I recently took a course on how cgroups and namespaces work, and can be combined to create containers, and my impression is security is a huge kludge. For example, the capabilities are just a seeming random assortment of different permissions, with a big dumping ground in the admin capability. It's hard to see how such a system can be reliably secured. Plus, it's all open source with a couple core contributors. What's to stop some state agency inserting its code into the core? No way to review everything, and a suitably clever developer can place a backdoor somewhere in all of the millions of lines of code. So, I must agree that security is not really at the forefront of Linux or container technology.
        MaxBarraclough 7y ago
        > my impression is security is a huge kludge Docker itself could be called a huge kluge, at least compared to Solaris 'zones' and FreeBSD 'jails'. They're similar to containers, but are supported directly by the kernel, whereas Docker has to pull together different kernel features to create its abstraction. [0] > What's to stop some state agency inserting its code into the core? No way to review everything 1. This isn't a point about containers, it's a point about Free and Open Source software in general. Do you avoid all Open Source software when security matters? 2. I'm pretty sure the Linux kernel folks review everything, and I imagine the Docker folks do too 3. You're implicitly assuming that closed-source software is safe from government pressure. It is not. [0] https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/containers-zones-jails-vms/ https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/containers-zones-jails-vms/
        yters 7y ago
        Nothing is safe from government pressure. But, at least with local closed source we know it's going to just be our government pressure. Otherwise, it could be any actor, which may be less friendly towards us.
    - Huggernaut 7y ago
      It is not objective by any stretch of the imagination. I suppose when security enhancements are made to any other system to make them safer (i.e. everything in the realm of security), you apply the same logic? Subjective.

That's more secure than running straight on the machine but not completely secure, security was never a core goal of linux containers. You want to run the software properly sandboxed, since linux doesn't have really engineered OS-level solutions (à la Solaris) that means vm e.g. running in qemu, or biting the bullet and switching to qubes.

Huggernaut 7y ago
I think that's an extremely uncharitable view on containers. There has been a massive amount of work put into securing containers for a variety of use cases using both layers available and by adding to the kernel.
- masklinn 7y ago
  > I think that's an extremely uncharitable view on containers. It's an objective one. > There has been a massive amount of work put into securing containers for a variety of use cases using both layers available and by adding to the kernel. That doesn't change the fact that security was never the primary goal for containers, so secure containers were and are a bunch of tricks, kludges and prayers being built up in the hope that eventually all the holes in the model will be patched. The "Making containers safer"[lwn][hn] talk was literally two days ago. Note how it says safer, not safe. [lwn] https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/796700/9bc9daa32a8fe499/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/796700/9bc9daa32a8fe499/ [hn] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20764355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20764355
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Of course it says safer, if someone tells you something is entirely safe you know they're lying.
  - roblabla 7y ago
    Can you please quote how containers are not built with security in mind? What would even be the point of user namespacing, network namespaces, filesystem namespaces, etc... if not security?
    - yters 7y ago
      I recently took a course on how cgroups and namespaces work, and can be combined to create containers, and my impression is security is a huge kludge. For example, the capabilities are just a seeming random assortment of different permissions, with a big dumping ground in the admin capability. It's hard to see how such a system can be reliably secured. Plus, it's all open source with a couple core contributors. What's to stop some state agency inserting its code into the core? No way to review everything, and a suitably clever developer can place a backdoor somewhere in all of the millions of lines of code. So, I must agree that security is not really at the forefront of Linux or container technology.
      - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
        > my impression is security is a huge kludge Docker itself could be called a huge kluge, at least compared to Solaris 'zones' and FreeBSD 'jails'. They're similar to containers, but are supported directly by the kernel, whereas Docker has to pull together different kernel features to create its abstraction. [0] > What's to stop some state agency inserting its code into the core? No way to review everything 1. This isn't a point about containers, it's a point about Free and Open Source software in general. Do you avoid all Open Source software when security matters? 2. I'm pretty sure the Linux kernel folks review everything, and I imagine the Docker folks do too 3. You're implicitly assuming that closed-source software is safe from government pressure. It is not. [0] https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/containers-zones-jails-vms/ https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/containers-zones-jails-vms/
        yters 7y ago
        Nothing is safe from government pressure. But, at least with local closed source we know it's going to just be our government pressure. Otherwise, it could be any actor, which may be less friendly towards us.
  - Huggernaut 7y ago
    It is not objective by any stretch of the imagination. I suppose when security enhancements are made to any other system to make them safer (i.e. everything in the realm of security), you apply the same logic? Subjective.