Live data from Hacker News

New Linux vulnerability affecting cgroups: can containers escape?

unit42.paloaltonetworks.com

1–10 of 86 posts

Re: New Linux vulnerability affecting cgroups: can containers escape?

#2
Important note on this:

"Fortunately, the default security hardenings in most container environments are enough to prevent container escape. Containers running with AppArmor or SELinux are protected. "

So, all that hard work on SELinux continues to pay off.

Re: New Linux vulnerability affecting cgroups: can containers escape?

#4
post #2

Important note on this: "Fortunately, the default security hardenings in most container environments are enough to prevent container escape. Containers running with AppArmor or SELinux are protected. " So, all that hard work on SELinux continues to pay off.

Sadly, many answers to questions related to selinux issues, or howto's start with: Disable selinux.

Re: New Linux vulnerability affecting cgroups: can containers escape?

#6
Back in the day, people insisted that containers were not security boundaries and should not be treated as such. They're meant to contain things from going off the rails unintentionally, but an actual threat was another story.

However, realistically, given the env that a container gives you, it certainly looks and feels like a security boundary. So are we just going to be stuck in this retroactive security cleanup mode forever? My point is that if it were designed from the ground up with the hard security boundary in mind, would we have ended up with containers in the first place? If not, is there any realistic way to go from where we are to where we should be?

The only other design I'm familiar with that sort of comes close are MicroVMs. Those have the downside of actually needing to run a VM though, and most (all?) cloud providers don't allow nested virtualization so you're stuck running on an enormous bare metal box.

Re: New Linux vulnerability affecting cgroups: can containers escape?

#7

“Container” seems to be used throughout to mean “Docker container”. There are other types of containers.

I think container escape is well understood by most to mean (for Linux) cgroups and/or the stack most folks use (containerd, Docker). It's a generic term but useful term, like VM escape, even though there are many kinds of virtual machine managers and hypervisors.

Re: New Linux vulnerability affecting cgroups: can containers escape?

#8
post #2

Important note on this: "Fortunately, the default security hardenings in most container environments are enough to prevent container escape. Containers running with AppArmor or SELinux are protected. " So, all that hard work on SELinux continues to pay off.

Sadly, many answers to questions related to selinux issues, or howto's start with: Disable selinux.

I strongly believe that software that works for users is better than software that doesn't, and it's clear that for most lay folks, SELinux is software that doesn't work.

SELinux remains inscrutable and unusuable to the lay person. Microsoft had the same problem with Windows XP and especially after its service pack 2 when the Windows Firewall was introduced, that it was difficult to debug and applications didn't prompt to open ports or have an API to do so. So many a lay person posted on forums "disable firewall".

Users don't care why their tools don't work, they don't understand why or how to fix it. Technically complex SELinux audit tutorials are not helpful. There needs to be real, genuine attention to user experience an almost tutorial like CLI command. Something so simple anyone could safely make a program run. Whether that program is safe itself is another question, and users should be told that too.

Re: New Linux vulnerability affecting cgroups: can containers escape?

#9
This style of writing sucks, and the abuse of the meaningless term "container" does nothing to clear it up. To reduce this CVE to one sentence: a process running in the top level control group, which has the ability to create user namespace, can take over the machine, because the kernel fails to check for CAP_SYS_ADMIN.

See how easy that was?

Re: New Linux vulnerability affecting cgroups: can containers escape?

#10
post #9

This style of writing sucks, and the abuse of the meaningless term "container" does nothing to clear it up. To reduce this CVE to one sentence: a process running in the top level control group, which has the ability to create user namespace, can take over the machine, because the kernel fails to check for CAP_SYS_ADMIN. See how easy that was?

Isn't the whole purpose of this style of writing to define terms like "top level control group" and "CAP_SYS_ADMIN" for those people who don't already understand what they mean?
Post reply on HN