3 ms·

You just repeated back the exact problem scenario I set out above but abstracted it into a Docker container, adding an additional point of failure, and then cal

You just repeated back the exact problem scenario I set out above but abstracted it into a Docker container, adding an additional point of failure, and then called it a solved problem. Sorry, but nope. The Docker container itself is a fully functional machine. It also holds your most prized data (password database/password host). Turning on auto-updates and watchtower then leaving it unmaintained indefinitely was exactly the problem I was posting about above. Scary that people think Docker is a security solution. It isn't. The Docker container is a full machine. The Docker host is a full machine. You've now doubled your points of failure and are zero percent more secure.

kllrnohj 7y ago
> Turning on auto-updates and watchtower then leaving it unmaintained indefinitely was exactly the problem I was posting about above. What? It's not unmaintained at all. It's continuously maintained by the updates to the container. That's the whole point. Just because the user that did the deployment isn't the one doing the maintenance doesn't mean it's unmaintained. The end-user isn't the one building the docker container, maybe that's where you're getting confused. Bitwarden themselves are maintaining it. That's how they are shipping the software for self-hosted deployments. Professionally maintained and self-hosted. That's why docker enters the picture, not for some imagined security reason as you incorrectly claim.