lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:28:52 -0600
From:   "Serge E. Hallyn" <>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <>, David Miller <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 next 1/5] modules:capabilities: add

Quoting Theodore Ts'o (
> Half the problem here is that with containers, people are changing the
> security model, because they want to let untrusted users have "root",
> without really having "root".  Part of the fundamental problem is that
> there are some well-meaning, but fundamentally misguided people, who
> have been asserting: "Containers are just as secure as VM's".
> Well, they are not.  And the sooner people get past this, the better
> off they'll be....

Just to be clear, module loading requires - and must always continue to
require - CAP_SYS_MODULE against the initial user namespace.  Containers
in user namespaces do not have that.

I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that containers which are not in
a user namespace are in any way secure.

(And as for the other claim, I'd prefer to stick to "VMs are in most
cases as insecure as properly configured containers" :)


Powered by blists - more mailing lists