this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
67 points (95.9% liked)

Selfhosted

40329 readers
426 users here now

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!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] azdle@news.idlestate.org 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Defense in depth. If something escapes the container it's limited to only what's under that user and not the whole system. Having access to the whole system makes it easier for malware to hide/persist itself.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong but containerization is enforced by the kernel, correct? If something escapes you're pretty much screwed anyway.

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

There are many layers involved in preventing escapes from containers.

[–] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Way too dependent on the setup, a container with absolutely no outside access theoretically just has the kernel, but usually we want to communicate with our docker images not just run them