Selfhosted

53668 readers

543 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:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
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.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.
No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

Docker security (lemmy.zip)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by jobbies@lemmy.zip to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

You're probably already aware of this, but if you run Docker on linux and use ufw or firewalld - it will bypass all your firewall rules. It doesn't matter what your defaults are or how strict you are about opening ports; Docker has free reign to send and receive from the host as it pleases.

If you are good at manipulating iptables there is a way around this, but it also affects outgoing traffic and could interfere with the bridge. Unless you're a pointy head with a fetish for iptables this will be a world of pain, so isn't really a solution.

There is a tool called ufw-docker that mitigates this by manipulating iptables for you. I was happy with this as a solution and it used to work well on my rig, but for some unknown reason its no-longer working and Docker is back to doing its own thing.

Am I missing an obvious solution here?

It seems odd for a popular tool like Docker - that is also used by enterprise - not to have a pain-free way around this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gerowen@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I just host everything on bare metal and use systemd to lock down/containerize things as necessary, even adding my own custom drop-ins for software that ships its own systemd service file. SystemD is way more powerful than people often realize.

[–] prettybunnys@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

When you say you’re using systems to lock down/containerize things as necessary can you explain what you mean?

[–] gerowen@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago

Systemd has all sorts of options. If a service has certain sandbox settings applied such as private /tmp, private /proc, restricting access to certain folders or devices, restricting available system calls or whatever, then systemd creates a chroot in /proc/PID for that process with all your settings applied and the process runs inside that chroot.

I've found it a little easier than managing a full blown container or VM, at least for the things I host for myself.

If a piece of software provides its own service file that isn't as restricted as you'd like, you can use systemctl edit to add additional options of your choosing to a "drop-in" file that gets loaded and applied at runtime so you don't have to worry about a package update overwriting any changes you make.

And you can even get ideas for settings to apply to a service to increase security with:

systemd-analyze security SERVICENAME

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)