2 ms·
Why "app"? These are services. > there shouldn't be any dogma around this Like everything in security, it's about tradeoffs. > Also, maybe, this means you're
by ex_amazon_sde 5y ago
Why "app"? These are services.
> there shouldn't be any dogma around this
Like everything in security, it's about tradeoffs.
> Also, maybe, this means you're not running a single app per vm?
This is an argument for unikernels.
Instead, on 99.9% of your services you want to run multiple independent processes, especially in a datacenter environment: your service, web server, sshd, logging forwarder, monitoring daemon, dhcp client, NTP client, backup service.
Often some additional "bigcorp" services like HIDS, credential provider, asset management, power management, deployment tools.
- vladvasiliu 5y ago> Why "app"? These are services. Yes, but I was using my initial post's parent's terminology. But I agree, in my mind, the subject was one single "service", as in process (or a process hierarchy, like say with gunicorn for python deployments). > This is an argument for unikernels. It is. And I'm also very interested in the developments around Firecraker and similar technologies. If we'd be able to have the kind of isolation AWS promises between ec2 instances on a single physical machine, while at the same time being able to launch a process in an isolated container as easy as with docker right now, I'd consider that really great. And all the other "infrastructure" services you talk about could just live their lives in their dedicated containers. Not sure how all this would compare, performance-wise, with just enabling the mitigations.