3 ms·
For those looking for a little more context or who want to see the App Container Spec in action we recorded videos following the initial announce of Rocket -- t
by kelseyhightower 12y ago
For those looking for a little more context or who want to see the App Container Spec in action we recorded videos following the initial announce of Rocket -- the initial implementation of the spec.
Rocket & App Container Spec Overview by Brandon Philips - (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYgpaAZMe-E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYgpaAZMe-E)
Rocket Tutorial and Demo by Kelsey Hightower - (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9WVjxaRkKU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9WVjxaRkKU)
Google Hangout with CoreOS: Rocket and the App Container Spec - (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3UmFQbUsN8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3UmFQbUsN8)
- darkarmani 12y agoIs there any discussion around why you require all container images to be signed? I understand that you want to provide a means to identifying that user X signed (well key Y signed it -- hopefully that is user X) the container, but it's putting the cart before the horse. Maybe I'm missing something, but this completely ignores that the biggest security issue is people and process. You can't require people to have good process. IMHO, requiring gpg signatures WEAKENS security, because the people that don't care or don't have strong security requirements are going to play fast and loose with their keys. If you don't require gpg signatures, you can let those people signal their lack of security by having "naked" images. (ie: a security audit will catch that really fast and then force a reasoned discussion about key trust) Requiring gpg signatures gives the illusion that all of the images are somehow more secure.