• hottari@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I never said I was relying on it alone. Not sure why you think that.

    …all my services aren’t running as root.

    If it turns out a vulnerability is discovered in lemmy tomorrow that allows people to access my server through my lemmy container, the attacker will only have access to a dummy account that hosts my containers.

    This was your argument according to you for why you think podman is more secure (than docker I presume). Seemed to imply rootless podman will save you from an attacker. I was simply disproving the flawed notion.

    • BlueBockser@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you’re interpreting too much. Security is about layers and making it harder for attackers, and that’s exactly what using a non-root user does.

      In that scenario, the attacker needs to find and exploit another vulnerability to gain root access, which takes time - time which the attacker might not be willing to spend and time which you can use to respond.

      • hottari@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t know enough about security to lecture me. The kernel has before/continues to suffer(ed) from successful root shell exploits, particularly in this case via unprivileged userns. Something podman or even rootless docker can’t do anything about.

        • BlueBockser@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Funny how you claim to know so much about security but can’t even seem to comprehend my comment. I know root shell exploits exist, that’s why I wrote that it takes additional time to get root access, not that it’s impossible. And that’s still a security improvement because it’s an additional hurdle for the adversary.

          • apigban@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            the person you are replying to either lacks comprehension or maybe just wants to be argumentative and doesn’t want to comprehend.

          • hottari@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Containers cannot be viewed as security tools. They suffer from poor isolation and inadequate and some cases non-existent sandboxing. All these are proven security essentials. You would know about them if you knew anything about (defensive) security!

            • BlueBockser@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Once again, you’re going off on an unrelated tangent. If you don’t want to listen, I can’t help you. We’re done here.