4 ms·
They also have a bad record regarding security, and usability without the setuid scripts is poor.
by prpl 6y ago
They also have a bad record regarding security, and usability without the setuid scripts is poor.
- angry_octet 6y agoWell I only see the one bad CVE, but yes security through extra setuid C code seems a bad idea. https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/05/16/1 https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/05/16/1 Ironically, I keep getting told I have to switch over from docker because of security. Plenty of IT security folk have their knickers in a twist at the idea of non-sysadmin priviledged users. They would rather run a giant insecure system (Linux or Windows AD) with lots of LPE and lateral movement than smaller more isolated systems with more trusted users and less LPE. Dev(Sec)Ops concepts still haven't penetrated very deep.
- gnufx 6y agoLack of CVEs for security issues is part of the problem with it. I think SUSE rejected it on the basis of auditing. While it would be better to run a capability micro-kernel-ish system, you're stuck with Linux for things like HPC. There's no excuse for known exploitable privilege escalations, though and, yes, introducing more opportunity with setuid programs doesn't help. I agree the way such systems are run is unfortunate.
- prpl 6y agoSeveral DOE sites won't even consider Singularity, including NERSC, who created Shifter (aka Docker + patching - networking) around the same time as development at Singularity started at LBNL (NERSC's parent lab). LANL created CharlieCloud (https://hpc.github.io/charliecloud/ https://hpc.github.io/charliecloud/) because they needed a hard focus on security first. There is quite a bit of distrust of Singularity places that value security. I'm hoping podman rootless can eventually come through and render all the bespoke implementations moot, but it will probably be a few years.