What is rootless bring brought up so much? It's a container, it's isolated from the host anyway, what does it matter what user runs inside? And if something breaks into the container they can trash the app in it and the shared volumes anyway, even if they're not root.
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong but containerization is enforced by the kernel, correct? If something escapes you're pretty much screwed anyway.
There are many layers involved in preventing escapes from containers.
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
Because a container is only as isolated from the host as you want it to be.
Suppose you run a container and mount the entire filesystem into it. If that container is running as root, it can then read and write anything it likes (including password databases and /etc/sudo)
So what? If I mount / in the container and choose to run it as root that's my business. Why would the containerization engine second-guess what I'm doing?
How would you like it if sudo told you "I can't let you be root, you could read and write anything you like, including password databases and /etc/sudo"?
Nothing to stop running podman containers with full root access by creating & running them as root, you run them as whatever user you want. I've done it to troubleshoot containers on more than one occasion, usually when I want to play with VPN or privileged ports but too lazy to do it proper. The end goal for a lot of ppl, including myself, is to run as many things as non-root as possible. Why? Best practices around security have you give a service the minimal access & resources it needs to do it's tasks. Some people allow traffic from the internet to their containers & they probably feel a little bit safer running those programs as non-root since it can create an extra layer that may need to be broken to fully compromise a system.
The point is to minimize privilege to the least possible - not to make it impossible to create higher privileged containers. If a container doesn't need to get direct raw hardware access, manage low ports on the host network, etc. then why should I give it root and let it be able to do those things? Mapping it to a user, controlling what resources it has access to, and restricting it's capabilities means that in the event that my container gets compromised, my entire host isn't necessarily screwed.
We're not saying "sudo shouldn't be able to run as root" but that "by default things shouldn't be run with sudo - and you need a compelling reason to swap over when you do"
It depends on the use case. The most common security issue I have seen with docker is on Linux desktop systems: docker deamon runs as root and user wants to use it to test all kinds of containers. So they make the docker socket accessible to the user, to lazy to use "sudo docker" every time... Having access to the docker socket means having the same permissions as the one running the daemon: root . Your browser effectively now has root permissions. At this point you could just login as root to your desktop.
There's real usability benefits too. I've collected some anecdotes from Reddit:
Rootless podman is my first choice for using containers now, it works fantastically well in my experience. It's so much nicer to have all my container related stuff like volumes, configs, the control socket, etc. in my home directory and standard user paths vs. scattered all over the system. Permission issues with bind mounts just totally disappear when you go rootless. It's so much easier and better than the root privileged daemon.
and,
If you are on Linux, there is the fantastic podman option "--userns keep-id" which will make sure the uid inside+_the container is the same as your current user uid._+
and,
Yeah in my experience with rootless you don't need to worry about UID shenanigans anymore. Containers can do stuff as root (from their perspective at least) all they want but any files you bind mount into the container are still just owned/modified by your user account on the host system (not a root user bleeding through from the container).
finally,
The permissions (rwx) don't change, but the uid/gid is mapped. E.g. uid 0 is the running user outside the container, by uid 1 will be mapped to 100000 (configurable), and say 5000 inside the container is mapped to 105000. I don't remember the exact mapping but it works roughly like that.
What is rootless bring brought up so much? It's a container, it's isolated from the host anyway, what does it matter what user runs inside? And if something breaks into the container they can trash the app in it and the shared volumes anyway, even if they're not root.
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong but containerization is enforced by the kernel, correct? If something escapes you're pretty much screwed anyway.
There are many layers involved in preventing escapes from containers.
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
Because a container is only as isolated from the host as you want it to be.
Suppose you run a container and mount the entire filesystem into it. If that container is running as root, it can then read and write anything it likes (including password databases and /etc/sudo)
So what? If I mount / in the container and choose to run it as root that's my business. Why would the containerization engine second-guess what I'm doing?
How would you like it if sudo told you "I can't let you be root, you could read and write anything you like, including password databases and /etc/sudo"?
Nothing to stop running podman containers with full root access by creating & running them as root, you run them as whatever user you want. I've done it to troubleshoot containers on more than one occasion, usually when I want to play with VPN or privileged ports but too lazy to do it proper. The end goal for a lot of ppl, including myself, is to run as many things as non-root as possible. Why? Best practices around security have you give a service the minimal access & resources it needs to do it's tasks. Some people allow traffic from the internet to their containers & they probably feel a little bit safer running those programs as non-root since it can create an extra layer that may need to be broken to fully compromise a system.
The point is to minimize privilege to the least possible - not to make it impossible to create higher privileged containers. If a container doesn't need to get direct raw hardware access, manage low ports on the host network, etc. then why should I give it root and let it be able to do those things? Mapping it to a user, controlling what resources it has access to, and restricting it's capabilities means that in the event that my container gets compromised, my entire host isn't necessarily screwed.
We're not saying "sudo shouldn't be able to run as root" but that "by default things shouldn't be run with sudo - and you need a compelling reason to swap over when you do"
It depends on the use case. The most common security issue I have seen with docker is on Linux desktop systems: docker deamon runs as root and user wants to use it to test all kinds of containers. So they make the docker socket accessible to the user, to lazy to use "sudo docker" every time... Having access to the docker socket means having the same permissions as the one running the daemon: root . Your browser effectively now has root permissions. At this point you could just login as root to your desktop.
There's real usability benefits too. I've collected some anecdotes from Reddit:
and,
and,
finally,