Does anyone know of a hosting service that offers Silverblue as a possible choice for OS?

It seems to me that for a server running only docker services the greatly reduced attack surface of an immutable distro presents a definitive advantage.

@aordogvan@lemmy.world
creator
link
fedilink
English
-12M

Because even if an attacker could gain access even as root he cannot modify system files. This is why immutable OS distros are called immutable.

Possibly linux
link
fedilink
English
2
edit-2
2M

Wait, why wouldn’t they? They could wipe the entire disk if they so choose

Because even if an attacker could gain access even as root he cannot modify system files.

They 100% can.

@MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
link
fedilink
English
12M

Absitively, use case here IMO is set and forget autoupdate to stay current and SELinux (which actually reduces surface)

@asap@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
0
edit-2
2M

They 100% can.

An attacker escaping from a container can’t be system root as Podman runs rootless (without some other exploit or weak password).

The filesystem itself is also read-only.

/dev/nvme0n1p4 on /sysroot type xfs (ro)
/dev/nvme0n1p4 on /usr type xfs (ro)
/dev/nvme0n1p3 on /boot type ext4 (ro)
@myersguy@lemmy.simpl.website
link
fedilink
English
5
edit-2
2M

An attacker escaping from a container can’t be system root as Podman runs rootless (without some other exploit or weak password).

That would be true of podman running anywhere, and is not unique to an immutable distribution.

The filesystem itself is also read-only.

You can change that real quick if you have root access.

@asap@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
1
edit-2
2M

edit: “Immutable” means “all of them are the same”, not “unchangeable”.

You sound confident, but the fact that Fedora is using the term “immutable” makes me wonder if you actually have domain expertise here.

Immutable means immutable. It would be strange for them to call it that if it actually means “completely irrelevant from a security perspective”.

Unless you provide some evidence to the contrary I’m going to assume you aren’t correct.

Someone with root can run ostree admin unlock --hotfix to make /usr writable. Someone with root can also delete all restore points.

It would be strange for them to call it that if it actually means “completely irrelevant from a security perspective”.

See the comment by superkret.

@asap@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
12M

While you are correct, any system is compromised if you have root, so isn’t that irrelevant at that point?

@myersguy@lemmy.simpl.website
link
fedilink
English
1
edit-2
2M

While you are correct, any system is compromised if you have root, so isn’t that irrelevant at that point?

The original context for the comment chain was:

Because even if an attacker could gain access even as root he cannot modify system files.

So no, it’s completely relevant.

@asap@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
12M

My comment in the comment chain was:

An attacker escaping from a container can’t be system root as Podman runs rootless (without some other exploit or weak password).

We could give the op the benefit of the doubt and thinking that they were saying that the attacker inside the container managed to gain root inside the container.

@aordogvan@lemmy.world
creator
link
fedilink
English
1
edit-2
2M

While what you’re saying is theoretically true, don’t forget that as far as I know, most attacks are perpetrated by bots. And while it is true that in a fedora based version one could run ostree admin unlock etc… this particular command would need to be included in the attack script.

Now if the script has to be modified to include all possible different immutable systems that could possibly run it would increase the complexity and most importantly the size of said script making it easier to detect.

I’m not saying that its a bulletproof method, I’m just saying that by itself it greatly minimizes the risk, at least until all servers run immutable systems. And even then it still complicates matters for potential attackers quite a bit. So therefore reducing or at least greatly minimizing the potential of the system being compromised.

Because even if an attacker could gain access even as root he cannot modify system files.

Your comment was already from the position of if an attacker could gain root access. My responses were to that directly, and nothing else.

@superkret@feddit.org
link
fedilink
English
62M

The immutability isn’t designed to protect against a malicious attacker with root access.
Any system is fucked if that happens.
It’s designed to reduce the workload of the maintainers, because they effectively only need to test and build for one standard image.

@asap@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
32M

Makes sense. An “immutable” distro provides no additional security benefit, however CoreOS does have a reduced attack surface area compared to other distros, which itself is a benefit.

Create a post

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don’t control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we’re here to support and learn from one another. Insults won’t be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it’s not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don’t duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

  • 1 user online
  • 126 users / day
  • 421 users / week
  • 1.16K users / month
  • 3.85K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 3.68K Posts
  • 74.2K Comments
  • Modlog