4 ms·
Virtual machines are never a security boundary. If you configure them correctly, avoid all the footguns, and pray that there's no VM escape vulnerabilities that
by vel0city 11mo ago
Virtual machines are never a security boundary. If you configure them correctly, avoid all the footguns, and pray that there's no VM escape vulnerabilities that affect "correctly" configured VMs then they can be a crude approximation of a security boundary that may be enough for your use case, but they aren't a suitable substitute for entirely separate hardware.
Its all turtles, all the way down.
- flaminHotSpeedo 11mo agoYeah, in some (rare) situations physical isolation is a more appropriate level of security. Or if you want to land somewhere in between, you can use VM's with single tenant NUMA nodes. But for a typical case, VM's are the bare minimum to say you have a _secure_ isolation boundary because the attack surface is way smaller.
- vel0city 11mo agoYeah, so secure. https://support.broadcom.com/web/ecx/support-content-notification/-/external/content/SecurityAdvisories/0/25390 https://support.broadcom.com/web/ecx/support-content-notific... https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-5183 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-5183 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-12130 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-12130 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-2698 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-2698 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-4936 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-4936 In the end you need to configure it properly and pray there's no escape vulnerabilities. The same standard you applied to containers to say they're definitely never a security boundary. Seems like you're drawing some pretty arbitrary lines here.