[headmelted]

It’s great that this isn’t hurting them but it leaves out a lot that makes me a bit nervous about this being taken as advice.

They’re advocating deploying a binary as preferable to using docker, fair enough, but what about the host running the binary? One of the reasons for using containers is to wrap your security hardening into your deployment so that anytime you do need to scale out you have confidence your security settings are identical across nodes.

On that, the monolith talked about here can be hosted on a single VPS, again that’s great (and cheap!), but if it crashes or the hardware fails for any reason that’s potentially substantial downtime.

The other worry I’d have is that tying everything into the monolith means losing any defence in depth in the application stack - if someone does breach your app through the frontend then they’ll be able to get right through to the backend data-store. This is one of the main reasons people put their data store behind an internal web service (so that you can security group it off in a private network away from the front-end to limit the attack surface to actions they would only have been able to perform through a web browser anyway).

[llm_trw]

>They’re advocating deploying a binary as preferable to using docker, fair enough, but what about the host running the binary? One of the reasons for using containers is to wrap your security hardening into your deployment so that anytime you do need to scale out you have confidence your security settings are identical across nodes.

There is no universe in which _increasing your attack surface_ increases your security.

[rezonant]

Considering the vast majority of exploits are at the application level (SQLi, XSS, etc), putting barriers between your various applications is a good thing to do. Sure, you could run 10 apps on 10+ VMs, but it's not cost efficient, and then you just have more servers to manage. If the choice is between run 10 "bare metal" apps on 1 VM or run 10 containers on 1 VM, I'll pick containers every time.

At that point, why are we making a distinction when we do run 1 app on one VM? Sure, containers have some overhead, but not enough for it to be a major concern for most apps, especially if you need more than 1 VM for the app anyway (horizontal scaling). The major attack vector added by containers is the possibility of container breakout, which is very real. But if you run that 1 app outside the container on that host, they don't have to break out of the container when they get RCE.

[headmelted]

I agree in principal but not in practice here.

If you’re using a typical docker host, say CoreOS, following a standard production setup, then running your app as a container on top of that (using an already hardened container that’s been audited), that whole stack has gone through a lot more review than your own custom-configured VPS. It also has several layers between the application and the host that would confine the application.

Docker would increase the attack surface, but a self-configured VPS would likely open a whole lot more windows and backdoors just by not being audited/reviewed.

[spockz]

On the other hand. If by using containers it has become more feasible for your employees to use something like AppArmor, the end result may be more secure than the situation where the binary just runs on the system without any protection.

[DEADMINCE]

Containers don't really increase attack surface, it's all stuff provided by the OS anyway. Docker just ties it all together and makes things convenient.

[7bit]

> One of the reasons for using containers is to wrap your security hardening into your deployment so that anytime you do need to scale out you have confidence your security settings are identical across nodes.

This is false. Or so you think your host is secured by installing Docker? And when you scale, how do you get additional hosts configured?

True is, when you use Docker you need to not only ensure that your containers are secure, but also your host (the services running your containers). And when you scale up, and you need to deploy additional hosts, they need to be just as secure.

And if you're using infrastructure as code and configuration as code, it does not matter if you are deploying a binary after configuring your system, or Docker.

[pheatherlite]

Complexity is the criminal in any scenario. However, if we simply focus on a vanilla installation of docker, then the namespace isolation alone can be viewed as a step up from running directly on the os. Of course complexity means a vulnerability in the docker stack exposes you to additional risk, whereas a systemd svc running as a service account is likely to contain any 0day better.

[turboponyy]

> They’re advocating deploying a binary as preferable to using docker, fair enough, but what about the host running the binary? One of the reasons for using containers is to wrap your security hardening into your deployment so that anytime you do need to scale out you have confidence your security settings are identical across nodes.

There are tools that make "bare metal" configuration reproducible (to varying degrees), e.g. NixOS, Ansible, building Amazon AMI images.

[headmelted]

All of which would be better than what the post is advocating and I totally agree with this.

[diarrhea]

I never understood how one “breaches an app through the frontend”. SQLi messes with your data store, natively (no RCE). XSS messes with other users, laterally. But how does one reach from the frontend all the way through, liberally? Are people running JavaScript interpreters with shell access inside of their Go API services and call eval on user input? It’s just so far fetched, on a technical level.

[enva2712]

Ahh yes, security through obscurity - if we make it so complex we can’t understand it then no one else can either, right?

The important thing is making walls indestructible, not making more walls. Interfaces decrease performance and increase complexity

[peanut-walrus]

Literally the entire guiding principle for security architecture for the past decade or even more has been that "there is no such thing as an indestructible wall".

[headmelted]

Literally no-one said that.

(Some of) the reasons why you would do this are explained (I thought clearly) above. None of this is security through obscurity.