3 ms·
The point is to minimize attack surfaces. If you're serving static content that's one less path for an attacker to potentially exploit. With only static files e
by orclev 13y ago
The point is to minimize attack surfaces. If you're serving static content that's one less path for an attacker to potentially exploit. With only static files exploits are limited to those contained in the web server or the OS network code. With a read only filesystem certain classes of privilege escalation are eliminated.
Attacks on routing or DNS are more difficult to deal with, but at least it isn't your server being compromised, and if you're using HTTPS properly then the certificate should show as invalid at least.
So yeah, security is complex, but his advice was spot on. The fact that you seem to call it into question says that you don't know much about security.
- peterwwillis 13y agoAre you kidding me?! At the very least suggest Grsec, SELinux, containers! Who gives a shit about "certain classes" of privilege escalation? Are you securing your webserver against 5th graders or actual hackers? If you want to minimize your attack surface, what he suggested is quite possibly the least effective possible thing anyone could do. I point out just a few of the more important issues to consider first, and you tell ME I don't know about security? I don't know what kind of systems you secure, but mine don't rely on 'mount -o ro,remount /' as a defense strategy.
- midas007 13y agoYou're missing the bigger point: enumerating every possible defense is beyond the scope of a comment AND does not exclude any technique by omission. If you'd like to raise technologies in a civil manner, please. Just don't start getting defensive and name calling. [1] [1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- midas007 13y agoThanks for also seeing the bigger picture. In the future, I will only submit complete production conf mgmt repos uuencoded in my comments. Readability is overrated.