5 ms·
It is public, so what? Obviously cloud operators consider it secure enough to offer that option by default. What are the reasons to consider it not secure?
by vbezhenar 3y ago
It is public, so what? Obviously cloud operators consider it secure enough to offer that option by default. What are the reasons to consider it not secure?
- YZF 3y agoIt's a good idea to minimize the attack surface you expose on the public Internet. Basically the default assumption should be to consider everything insecure. Cloud vendors by nature take ownership of protecting all their public facing APIs and they're in the business of offering and securing those. That doesn't mean you should open everything to the Internet.
- dangus 3y agoNot only that but cloud providers put their managed Kubernetes behind IAM. If you've managed to breach that and you've got Amazon or Microsoft convinced that you are a privileged account owner, it would be trivial to modify the infrastructure to make a private API endpoint public or create a bastion host with access.
- weikju 3y agoWhile I agree is likely secure enough, remember that cloud operators such as Aws used to be ok with making s3 buckets public by default, which did cause many issues until they finally changed that (and made it harder to make them public even intentionally).
- arrakeenrevived 3y agoS3 buckets have never been public by default. They were, however, very easy to make public before things like Block Public Access existed, so lazy devs would just click that button rather than doing proper access control.
- weikju 3y agoI stand corrected.
- captn3m0 3y agoI'll have to look it up, but there was an unauthenticated exploit against the control plane a while ago. Probably https://blog.appsecco.com/analysing-and-exploiting-kubernetes-apiserver-vulnerability-cve-2018-1002105-3150d97b24bb https://blog.appsecco.com/analysing-and-exploiting-kubernete... CVE-2018–1002105