DockerCon SF 2015: Docker Security
9 likes7,150 views
The document discusses the concept of least-privilege in microservices, emphasizing the need for processes to access only necessary resources for their tasks. It outlines the evolution of container security with Docker, focusing on mechanisms such as namespaces, cgroups, and security modules to enforce fine-grained control. The document concludes that while Docker is progressing towards supporting least-privilege microservices, more user-friendly tools for defining security profiles are still required.
DockerCon SF 2015: Docker Security
- 2. Agenda • Why least-privilege • History of least-privilege • Least-privilege with Docker • Ongoing and future work • Conclusions
- 3. “Every process must be able to access only the information and resources that are necessary for its legitimate purpose”
- 10. Today Internet
- 11. ‣A FE server has a very different security profile than a database or a worker host ‣Imagine that each container only has access exactly to the resources and APIs it needs. No more, no less. Front-end Server Back-end Server ‣Access to a lot of downstream services ‣Most exposed ‣I/O intensive ‣Limited network access Worker Host ‣CPU Intensive ‣Wide range of workloads Profiles
- 12. ‣A container is a process. Let’s find out what syscalls it needs. Process Monitoring
- 13. ‣Namespaces provide an isolated view of the system (Network, PID, etc) ‣Cgroups limit and isolate the resource usage of a collection of processes ‣Linux Security Modules give us a MAC (AppArmor, SELinux) Fine-grained controls
- 14. Fine-grained controls ‣Capabilities divides the privileges of root into distinct units (bind, chown, etc) ‣Per-container ulimit (since 1.6) ‣User-namespaces: root inside is not root outside (remapped root for 1.8) ‣Seccomp: Individual syscall filtering (working on my laptop)
- 15. Safer by default ‣Less than half the Linux capabilities by default ‣Copy-on-write ensures immutability ‣No device access by default ‣Default AppArmor and SELinux profiles for an increasing number of containers
- 16. Safer by default ‣Smaller footprint ‣Remove all unneeded packages ‣Remove all unneeded users ‣Remove all suid binaries … Debia n
- 17. Security Profiles Debia n ‣Producers of containers should be responsible for creating adequate profiles ‣Profile gets shipped with the container ‣Aggregates all of the different isolation mechanisms into one single profile
- 18. Securing the Ecosystem Debia n User-namespaces Seccomp Provenance Selinux Kerberos
- 19. Intro to Container Security Debia n http://bit.ly/1M4O9XE
- 20. Docker Bench Debia n https://dockerbench.com/ ‣Fully automated ‣Shipped as a container that tests containers
- 21. Conclusion ‣Docker is on the path to support least-privilege microservices, since it allows fine-grained control over what access each container should have. ‣We will need easier tooling to define per-container security profiles ‣You can help! #docker-security on Freenode