Container Security Fundamental Technology Concepts That Protect Containerized Applications
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more
Recommended publications
-
Security Analysis of Docker Containers in a Production Environment
Security analysis of Docker containers in a production environment Jon-Anders Kabbe Master of Science in Communication Technology Submission date: June 2017 Supervisor: Colin Alexander Boyd, IIK Co-supervisor: Audun Bjørkøy, TIND Technologies Norwegian University of Science and Technology Department of Information Security and Communication Technology Title: Security Analysis of Docker Containers in a Production Environment Student: Jon-Anders Kabbe Problem description: Deployment of Docker containers has achieved its popularity by providing an au- tomatable and stable environment serving a particular application. Docker creates a separate image of a file system with everything the application require during runtime. Containers run atop the regular file system as separate units containing only libraries and tools that particular application require. Docker containers reduce the attack surface, improves process interaction and sim- plifies sandboxing. But containers also raise security concerns, reduced segregation between the operating system and application, out of date or variations in libraries and tools and is still an unsettled technology. Docker containers provide a stable and static environment for applications; this is achieved by creating a static image of only libraries and tools the specific application needs during runtime. Out of date tools and libraries are a major security risk when exposing applications over the Internet, but availability is essential in a competitive market. Does Docker raise some security concerns compared to standard application deploy- ment such as hypervisor-based virtual machines? Is the Docker “best practices” sufficient to secure the container and how does this compare to traditional virtual machine application deployment? Responsible professor: Colin Alexander Boyd, ITEM Supervisor: Audun Bjørkøy, TIND Technologies Abstract Container technology for hosting applications on the web is gaining traction as the preferred mode of deployment. -
In Search of the Ideal Storage Configuration for Docker Containers
In Search of the Ideal Storage Configuration for Docker Containers Vasily Tarasov1, Lukas Rupprecht1, Dimitris Skourtis1, Amit Warke1, Dean Hildebrand1 Mohamed Mohamed1, Nagapramod Mandagere1, Wenji Li2, Raju Rangaswami3, Ming Zhao2 1IBM Research—Almaden 2Arizona State University 3Florida International University Abstract—Containers are a widely successful technology today every running container. This would cause a great burden on popularized by Docker. Containers improve system utilization by the I/O subsystem and make container start time unacceptably increasing workload density. Docker containers enable seamless high for many workloads. As a result, copy-on-write (CoW) deployment of workloads across development, test, and produc- tion environments. Docker’s unique approach to data manage- storage and storage snapshots are popularly used and images ment, which involves frequent snapshot creation and removal, are structured in layers. A layer consists of a set of files and presents a new set of exciting challenges for storage systems. At layers with the same content can be shared across images, the same time, storage management for Docker containers has reducing the amount of storage required to run containers. remained largely unexplored with a dizzying array of solution With Docker, one can choose Aufs [6], Overlay2 [7], choices and configuration options. In this paper we unravel the multi-faceted nature of Docker storage and demonstrate its Btrfs [8], or device-mapper (dm) [9] as storage drivers which impact on system and workload performance. As we uncover provide the required snapshotting and CoW capabilities for new properties of the popular Docker storage drivers, this is a images. None of these solutions, however, were designed with sobering reminder that widespread use of new technologies can Docker in mind and their effectiveness for Docker has not been often precede their careful evaluation. -
Resource Management: Linux Kernel Namespaces and Cgroups
Resource management: Linux kernel Namespaces and cgroups Rami Rosen [email protected] Haifux, May 2013 www.haifux.org 1/121 http://ramirose.wix.com/ramirosen TOC Network Namespace PID namespaces UTS namespace Mount namespace user namespaces cgroups Mounting cgroups links Note: All code examples are from for_3_10 branch of cgroup git tree (3.9.0-rc1, April 2013) 2/121 http://ramirose.wix.com/ramirosen General The presentation deals with two Linux process resource management solutions: namespaces and cgroups. We will look at: ● Kernel Implementation details. ●what was added/changed in brief. ● User space interface. ● Some working examples. ● Usage of namespaces and cgroups in other projects. ● Is process virtualization indeed lightweight comparing to Os virtualization ? ●Comparing to VMWare/qemu/scaleMP or even to Xen/KVM. 3/121 http://ramirose.wix.com/ramirosen Namespaces ● Namespaces - lightweight process virtualization. – Isolation: Enable a process (or several processes) to have different views of the system than other processes. – 1992: “The Use of Name Spaces in Plan 9” – http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/names.html ● Rob Pike et al, ACM SIGOPS European Workshop 1992. – Much like Zones in Solaris. – No hypervisor layer (as in OS virtualization like KVM, Xen) – Only one system call was added (setns()) – Used in Checkpoint/Restart ● Developers: Eric W. biederman, Pavel Emelyanov, Al Viro, Cyrill Gorcunov, more. – 4/121 http://ramirose.wix.com/ramirosen Namespaces - contd There are currently 6 namespaces: ● mnt (mount points, filesystems) ● pid (processes) ● net (network stack) ● ipc (System V IPC) ● uts (hostname) ● user (UIDs) 5/121 http://ramirose.wix.com/ramirosen Namespaces - contd It was intended that there will be 10 namespaces: the following 4 namespaces are not implemented (yet): ● security namespace ● security keys namespace ● device namespace ● time namespace. -
Administration Guide Administration Guide SUSE Linux Enterprise High Availability Extension 15 SP1 by Tanja Roth and Thomas Schraitle
SUSE Linux Enterprise High Availability Extension 15 SP1 Administration Guide Administration Guide SUSE Linux Enterprise High Availability Extension 15 SP1 by Tanja Roth and Thomas Schraitle This guide is intended for administrators who need to set up, congure, and maintain clusters with SUSE® Linux Enterprise High Availability Extension. For quick and ecient conguration and administration, the product includes both a graphical user interface and a command line interface (CLI). For performing key tasks, both approaches are covered in this guide. Thus, you can choose the appropriate tool that matches your needs. Publication Date: September 24, 2021 SUSE LLC 1800 South Novell Place Provo, UT 84606 USA https://documentation.suse.com Copyright © 2006–2021 SUSE LLC and contributors. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or (at your option) version 1.3; with the Invariant Section being this copyright notice and license. A copy of the license version 1.2 is included in the section entitled “GNU Free Documentation License”. For SUSE trademarks, see http://www.suse.com/company/legal/ . All other third-party trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Trademark symbols (®, ™ etc.) denote trademarks of SUSE and its aliates. Asterisks (*) denote third-party trademarks. All information found in this book has been compiled with utmost attention to detail. However, this does not guarantee complete accuracy. Neither SUSE -
Firecracker: Lightweight Virtualization for Serverless Applications
Firecracker: Lightweight Virtualization for Serverless Applications Alexandru Agache, Marc Brooker, Andreea Florescu, Alexandra Iordache, Anthony Liguori, Rolf Neugebauer, Phil Piwonka, and Diana-Maria Popa, Amazon Web Services https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi20/presentation/agache This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 17th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI ’20) February 25–27, 2020 • Santa Clara, CA, USA 978-1-939133-13-7 Open access to the Proceedings of the 17th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI ’20) is sponsored by Firecracker: Lightweight Virtualization for Serverless Applications Alexandru Agache Marc Brooker Andreea Florescu Amazon Web Services Amazon Web Services Amazon Web Services Alexandra Iordache Anthony Liguori Rolf Neugebauer Amazon Web Services Amazon Web Services Amazon Web Services Phil Piwonka Diana-Maria Popa Amazon Web Services Amazon Web Services Abstract vantage over traditional server provisioning processes: mul- titenancy allows servers to be shared across a large num- Serverless containers and functions are widely used for de- ber of workloads, and the ability to provision new func- ploying and managing software in the cloud. Their popularity tions and containers in milliseconds allows capacity to be is due to reduced cost of operations, improved utilization of switched between workloads quickly as demand changes. hardware, and faster scaling than traditional deployment meth- Serverless is also attracting the attention of the research com- ods. The economics and scale of serverless applications de- munity [21,26,27,44,47], including work on scaling out video mand that workloads from multiple customers run on the same encoding [13], linear algebra [20, 53] and parallel compila- hardware with minimal overhead, while preserving strong se- tion [12]. -
Scibian 9 HPC Installation Guide
Scibian 9 HPC Installation guide CCN-HPC Version 1.9, 2018-08-20 Table of Contents About this document . 1 Purpose . 2 Structure . 3 Typographic conventions . 4 Build dependencies . 5 License . 6 Authors . 7 Reference architecture. 8 1. Hardware architecture . 9 1.1. Networks . 9 1.2. Infrastructure cluster. 10 1.3. User-space cluster . 12 1.4. Storage system . 12 2. External services . 13 2.1. Base services. 13 2.2. Optional services . 14 3. Software architecture . 15 3.1. Overview . 15 3.2. Base Services . 16 3.3. Additional Services. 19 3.4. High-Availability . 20 4. Conventions . 23 5. Advanced Topics . 24 5.1. Boot sequence . 24 5.2. iPXE Bootmenu Generator. 28 5.3. Debian Installer Preseed Generator. 30 5.4. Frontend nodes: SSH load-balancing and high-availability . 31 5.5. Service nodes: DNS load-balancing and high-availability . 34 5.6. Consul and DNS integration. 35 5.7. Scibian diskless initrd . 37 Installation procedure. 39 6. Overview. 40 7. Requirements . 41 8. Temporary installation node . 44 8.1. Base installation . 44 8.2. Administration environment . 44 9. Internal configuration repository . 46 9.1. Base directories . 46 9.2. Organization settings . 46 9.3. Cluster directories . 48 9.4. Puppet configuration . 48 9.5. Cluster definition. 49 9.6. Service role . 55 9.7. Authentication and encryption keys . 56 10. Generic service nodes . 62 10.1. Temporary installation services . 62 10.2. First Run. 62 10.3. Second Run . 64 10.4. Base system installation. 64 10.5. Ceph deployment . 66 10.6. Consul deployment. -
Separating Protection and Management in Cloud Infrastructures
SEPARATING PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT IN CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURES A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Zhiming Shen December 2017 c 2017 Zhiming Shen ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SEPARATING PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT IN CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURES Zhiming Shen, Ph.D. Cornell University 2017 Cloud computing infrastructures serving mutually untrusted users provide se- curity isolation to protect user computation and resources. Additionally, clouds should also support flexibility and efficiency, so that users can customize re- source management policies and optimize performance and resource utiliza- tion. However, flexibility and efficiency are typically limited due to security requirements. This dissertation investigates the question of how to offer flexi- bility and efficiency as well as strong security in cloud infrastructures. Specifically, this dissertation addresses two important platforms in cloud in- frastructures: the containers and the Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) platforms. The containers platform supports efficient container provisioning and execut- ing, but does not provide sufficient security and flexibility. Different containers share an operating system kernel which has a large attack surface, and kernel customization is generally not allowed. The IaaS platform supports secure shar- ing of cloud resources among mutually untrusted users, but does not provide sufficient flexibility and efficiency. Many powerful management primitives en- abled by the underlying virtualization platform are hidden from users, such as live virtual machine migration and consolidation. The main contribution of this dissertation is the proposal of an approach in- spired by the exokernel architecture that can be generalized to any multi-tenant system to improve security, flexibility, and efficiency. -
Containers – Namespaces and Cgroups
Containers – namespaces and cgroups --- Ajay Nayak Motivation Why containers? • Important use-case: implementing lightweight virtualization • Virtualization == isolation of processes • Traditional virtualization: Hypervisors • Processes isolated by running in separate guest kernels that sit on top of host kernel • Isolation is “all or nothing” • Virtualization via containers • Permit isolation of processes running on a single kernel be per-global- resource --- via namespaces • Restrict resource consumption --- via cgroups Outline • Motivation • Concepts • Linux Namespaces • UTS • UID • Mount • C(ontrol) groups • Food for thought Introduction Concepts • Isolation • Goal: Limit “WHAT” a process can use • “wrap” some global system resource to provide resource isolation • Namespaces jump into the picture • Control • Goal: Limit “HOW MUCH” a process can use • A mechanism for aggregating/partitioning sets of tasks, and all their future children, into hierarchical groups • Assign specialized behaviour to the group • C(ontrol) groups jump into the picture https://github.com/nayakajay/linux-namespaces Namespaces Linux namespaces • Supports following NS types: (CLONE_FLAG; symlink) • Mount (CLONE_NEWNS; /proc/pid/ns/mnt) • UTS (CLONE_NEWUTS; /proc/pid/ns/uts) • IPC (CLONE_NEWIPC; /proc/pid/ns/ipc) • PID (CLONE_NEWPID; /proc/pid/ns/pid) • Network (CLONE_NEWNET; /proc/pid/ns/net) • User (CLONE_NEWUSER; /proc/pid/ns/user) • Cgroup (CLONE_NEWCGROUP; /proc/pid/ns/cgroup) • Time (CLONE_NEWTIME; /proc/pid/ns/time) <= very new! # Magic symlinks, which -
A Reliable Booting System for Zynq Ultrascale+ Mpsoc Devices
A reliable booting system for Zynq Ultrascale+ MPSoC devices An embedded solution that provides fallbacks in different parts of the Zynq MPSoC booting process, to assure successful booting into a Linux operating system. A thesis presented for the Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering at the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht Name Nekija Dˇzemaili Student ID 1702168 University supervisor Corn´eDuiser CERN supervisors Marc Dobson & Petr Zejdlˇ Field of study Electrical Engineering (embedded systems) CERN-THESIS-2021-031 17/03/2021 February 15th, 2021 Geneva, Switzerland A reliable booting system for Zynq Ultrascale+ MPSoC devices Disclaimer The board of the foundation HU University of Applied Sciences in Utrecht does not accept any form of liability for damage resulting from usage of data, resources, methods, or procedures as described in this report. Duplication without consent of the author or the college is not permitted. If the graduation assignment is executed within a company, explicit consent of the company is necessary for duplication or copying of text from this report. Het bestuur van de Stichting Hogeschool Utrecht te Utrecht aanvaardt geen enkele aansprakelijkheid voor schade voortvloeiende uit het gebruik van enig gegeven, hulpmiddel, werkwijze of procedure in dit verslag beschreven. Vermenigvuldiging zonder toestemming van de auteur(s) en de school is niet toegestaan. Indien het afstudeerwerk in een bedrijf is verricht, is voor vermenigvuldiging of overname van tekst uit dit verslag eveneens toestemming van het bedrijf vereist. N. Dˇzemaili page 1 of 110 A reliable booting system for Zynq Ultrascale+ MPSoC devices Preface This thesis was written for the BSc Electrical Engineering degree of the HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, the Netherlands. -
Security of OS-Level Virtualization Technologies: Technical Report
Security of OS-level virtualization technologies Elena Reshetova1, Janne Karhunen2, Thomas Nyman3, N. Asokan4 1 Intel OTC, Finland 2 Ericsson, Finland 3 University of Helsinki, Finland 4 Aalto University and University of Helsinki, Finland Abstract. The need for flexible, low-overhead virtualization is evident on many fronts ranging from high-density cloud servers to mobile devices. During the past decade OS-level virtualization has emerged as a new, efficient approach for virtualization, with implementations in multiple different Unix-based systems. Despite its popularity, there has been no systematic study of OS-level virtualization from the point of view of security. In this report, we conduct a comparative study of several OS- level virtualization systems, discuss their security and identify some gaps in current solutions. 1 Introduction During the past couple of decades the use of different virtualization technolo- gies has been on a steady rise. Since IBM CP-40 [19], the first virtual machine prototype in 1966, many different types of virtualization and their uses have been actively explored both by the research community and by the industry. A relatively recent approach, which is becoming increasingly popular due to its light-weight nature, is Operating System-Level Virtualization, where a number of distinct user space instances, often referred to as containers, are run on top of a shared operating system kernel. A fundamental difference between OS-level virtualization and more established competitors, such as Xen hypervisor [24], VMWare [48] and Linux Kernel Virtual Machine [29] (KVM), is that in OS-level virtualization, the virtualized artifacts are global kernel resources, as opposed to hardware. -
Container-Based Virtualization
Container-Based Virtualization Advanced Operating Systems Luca Abeni [email protected] Virtualized Resources • Virtual Machine: efficient, isolated duplicate of a physical machine • Why focusing on physical machines? • What about abstract machines? • Software stack: hierarchy of abstract machines • ... • Abstract machine: language runtime • Abstract machine: OS (hardware + system library calls) • Abstract machine: OS kernel (hardware + syscalls) • Physical machine (hardware) Advanced Operating Systems Container-Based Virtualization Hardware Virtualization • Can be full hardware virtualization or paravirtualization • Paravirtualization requires modifications to guest OS (kernel) • Can be based on trap and emulate • Can use special CPU features (hardware assisted virtualization) • In any case, the hardware (whole machine) is virtualized! • Guests can provide their own OS kernel • Guests can execute at various privilege levels Advanced Operating Systems Container-Based Virtualization OS-Level Virtualization • The OS kernel (or the whole OS) is virtualized • Guests can provide the user-space part of the OS (system libraries + binaries, boot scripts, ...) or just an application... • ...But continue to use the host OS kernel! • One single OS kernel (the host kernel) in the system • The kernel virtualizes all (or part) of its services • OS kernel virtualization: container-based virtualization • Example of OS virtualization: wine Advanced Operating Systems Container-Based Virtualization Virtualization at Language Level • The language runtime -
F5 BIG-IP 12.1.3.4 for LTM+APM Security Target
F5 BIG-IP 12.1.3.4 for LTM+APM Security Target Release Date: January 15, 2019 Version: 1.3 Prepared By: Saffire Systems PO Box 40295 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Prepared For: F5 Networks, Inc. 401 Elliott Avenue West Seattle, WA 98119 ã 2018 F5 Networks. All Rights Reserved. F5 BIG-IP APM 12.1.3.4 APM ST January 15, 2019 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 SECURITY TARGET IDENTIFICATION .................................................................................................................1 1.2 TOE IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................................1 1.3 DOCUMENT TERMINOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................3 1.3.1 ST Specific Terminology .........................................................................................................................3 1.3.2 Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................4 1.4 TOE TYPE .........................................................................................................................................................5 1.5 TOE OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................5