mirror of
https://github.com/moby/moby.git
synced 2022-11-09 12:21:53 -05:00
ada86fc5b7
relative paths, and also fixed some broken images. There are still more todo - next PR I think :) Docker-DCO-1.1-Signed-off-by: Sven Dowideit <SvenDowideit@fosiki.com> (github: SvenDowideit)
257 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
257 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
page_title: Docker Security
|
|
page_description: Review of the Docker Daemon attack surface
|
|
page_keywords: Docker, Docker documentation, security
|
|
|
|
# Docker Security
|
|
|
|
> *Adapted from* [Containers & Docker: How Secure are
|
|
> They?](http://blog.docker.io/2013/08/containers-docker-how-secure-are-they/)
|
|
|
|
There are three major areas to consider when reviewing Docker security:
|
|
|
|
- the intrinsic security of containers, as implemented by kernel
|
|
namespaces and cgroups;
|
|
- the attack surface of the Docker daemon itself;
|
|
- the "hardening" security features of the kernel and how they
|
|
interact with containers.
|
|
|
|
## Kernel Namespaces
|
|
|
|
Docker containers are essentially LXC containers, and they come with the
|
|
same security features. When you start a container with
|
|
`docker run`, behind the scenes Docker uses
|
|
`lxc-start` to execute the Docker container. This
|
|
creates a set of namespaces and control groups for the container. Those
|
|
namespaces and control groups are not created by Docker itself, but by
|
|
`lxc-start`. This means that as the LXC userland
|
|
tools evolve (and provide additional namespaces and isolation features),
|
|
Docker will automatically make use of them.
|
|
|
|
**Namespaces provide the first and most straightforward form of
|
|
isolation**: processes running within a container cannot see, and even
|
|
less affect, processes running in another container, or in the host
|
|
system.
|
|
|
|
**Each container also gets its own network stack**, meaning that a
|
|
container doesn't get a privileged access to the sockets or interfaces
|
|
of another container. Of course, if the host system is setup
|
|
accordingly, containers can interact with each other through their
|
|
respective network interfaces — just like they can interact with
|
|
external hosts. When you specify public ports for your containers or use
|
|
[*links*](/use/working_with_links_names/#working-with-links-names)
|
|
then IP traffic is allowed between containers. They can ping each other,
|
|
send/receive UDP packets, and establish TCP connections, but that can be
|
|
restricted if necessary. From a network architecture point of view, all
|
|
containers on a given Docker host are sitting on bridge interfaces. This
|
|
means that they are just like physical machines connected through a
|
|
common Ethernet switch; no more, no less.
|
|
|
|
How mature is the code providing kernel namespaces and private
|
|
networking? Kernel namespaces were introduced [between kernel version
|
|
2.6.15 and
|
|
2.6.26](http://lxc.sourceforge.net/index.php/about/kernel-namespaces/).
|
|
This means that since July 2008 (date of the 2.6.26 release, now 5 years
|
|
ago), namespace code has been exercised and scrutinized on a large
|
|
number of production systems. And there is more: the design and
|
|
inspiration for the namespaces code are even older. Namespaces are
|
|
actually an effort to reimplement the features of [OpenVZ](
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVZ) in such a way that they
|
|
could be merged within the mainstream kernel. And OpenVZ was initially
|
|
released in 2005, so both the design and the implementation are pretty
|
|
mature.
|
|
|
|
## Control Groups
|
|
|
|
Control Groups are the other key component of Linux Containers. They
|
|
implement resource accounting and limiting. They provide a lot of very
|
|
useful metrics, but they also help to ensure that each container gets
|
|
its fair share of memory, CPU, disk I/O; and, more importantly, that a
|
|
single container cannot bring the system down by exhausting one of those
|
|
resources.
|
|
|
|
So while they do not play a role in preventing one container from
|
|
accessing or affecting the data and processes of another container, they
|
|
are essential to fend off some denial-of-service attacks. They are
|
|
particularly important on multi-tenant platforms, like public and
|
|
private PaaS, to guarantee a consistent uptime (and performance) even
|
|
when some applications start to misbehave.
|
|
|
|
Control Groups have been around for a while as well: the code was
|
|
started in 2006, and initially merged in kernel 2.6.24.
|
|
|
|
## Docker Daemon Attack Surface
|
|
|
|
Running containers (and applications) with Docker implies running the
|
|
Docker daemon. This daemon currently requires root privileges, and you
|
|
should therefore be aware of some important details.
|
|
|
|
First of all, **only trusted users should be allowed to control your
|
|
Docker daemon**. This is a direct consequence of some powerful Docker
|
|
features. Specifically, Docker allows you to share a directory between
|
|
the Docker host and a guest container; and it allows you to do so
|
|
without limiting the access rights of the container. This means that you
|
|
can start a container where the `/host` directory will be the `/` directory
|
|
on your host; and the container will be able to alter your host filesystem
|
|
without any restriction. This sounds crazy? Well, you have to know that
|
|
**all virtualization systems allowing filesystem resource sharing behave the
|
|
same way**. Nothing prevents you from sharing your root filesystem (or
|
|
even your root block device) with a virtual machine.
|
|
|
|
This has a strong security implication: if you instrument Docker from
|
|
e.g. a web server to provision containers through an API, you should be
|
|
even more careful than usual with parameter checking, to make sure that
|
|
a malicious user cannot pass crafted parameters causing Docker to create
|
|
arbitrary containers.
|
|
|
|
For this reason, the REST API endpoint (used by the Docker CLI to
|
|
communicate with the Docker daemon) changed in Docker 0.5.2, and now
|
|
uses a UNIX socket instead of a TCP socket bound on 127.0.0.1 (the
|
|
latter being prone to cross-site-scripting attacks if you happen to run
|
|
Docker directly on your local machine, outside of a VM). You can then
|
|
use traditional UNIX permission checks to limit access to the control
|
|
socket.
|
|
|
|
You can also expose the REST API over HTTP if you explicitly decide so.
|
|
However, if you do that, being aware of the abovementioned security
|
|
implication, you should ensure that it will be reachable only from a
|
|
trusted network or VPN; or protected with e.g. `stunnel`
|
|
and client SSL certificates.
|
|
|
|
Recent improvements in Linux namespaces will soon allow to run
|
|
full-featured containers without root privileges, thanks to the new user
|
|
namespace. This is covered in detail [here](
|
|
http://s3hh.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/creating-and-using-containers-without-privilege/).
|
|
Moreover, this will solve the problem caused by sharing filesystems
|
|
between host and guest, since the user namespace allows users within
|
|
containers (including the root user) to be mapped to other users in the
|
|
host system.
|
|
|
|
The end goal for Docker is therefore to implement two additional
|
|
security improvements:
|
|
|
|
- map the root user of a container to a non-root user of the Docker
|
|
host, to mitigate the effects of a container-to-host privilege
|
|
escalation;
|
|
- allow the Docker daemon to run without root privileges, and delegate
|
|
operations requiring those privileges to well-audited sub-processes,
|
|
each with its own (very limited) scope: virtual network setup,
|
|
filesystem management, etc.
|
|
|
|
Finally, if you run Docker on a server, it is recommended to run
|
|
exclusively Docker in the server, and move all other services within
|
|
containers controlled by Docker. Of course, it is fine to keep your
|
|
favorite admin tools (probably at least an SSH server), as well as
|
|
existing monitoring/supervision processes (e.g. NRPE, collectd, etc).
|
|
|
|
## Linux Kernel Capabilities
|
|
|
|
By default, Docker starts containers with a very restricted set of
|
|
capabilities. What does that mean?
|
|
|
|
Capabilities turn the binary "root/non-root" dichotomy into a
|
|
fine-grained access control system. Processes (like web servers) that
|
|
just need to bind on a port below 1024 do not have to run as root: they
|
|
can just be granted the `net_bind_service` capability instead. And there
|
|
are many other capabilities, for almost all the specific areas where root
|
|
privileges are usually needed.
|
|
|
|
This means a lot for container security; let's see why!
|
|
|
|
Your average server (bare metal or virtual machine) needs to run a bunch
|
|
of processes as root. Those typically include SSH, cron, syslogd;
|
|
hardware management tools (to e.g. load modules), network configuration
|
|
tools (to handle e.g. DHCP, WPA, or VPNs), and much more. A container is
|
|
very different, because almost all of those tasks are handled by the
|
|
infrastructure around the container:
|
|
|
|
- SSH access will typically be managed by a single server running in
|
|
the Docker host;
|
|
- `cron`, when necessary, should run as a user
|
|
process, dedicated and tailored for the app that needs its
|
|
scheduling service, rather than as a platform-wide facility;
|
|
- log management will also typically be handed to Docker, or by
|
|
third-party services like Loggly or Splunk;
|
|
- hardware management is irrelevant, meaning that you never need to
|
|
run `udevd` or equivalent daemons within
|
|
containers;
|
|
- network management happens outside of the containers, enforcing
|
|
separation of concerns as much as possible, meaning that a container
|
|
should never need to perform `ifconfig`,
|
|
`route`, or ip commands (except when a container
|
|
is specifically engineered to behave like a router or firewall, of
|
|
course).
|
|
|
|
This means that in most cases, containers will not need "real" root
|
|
privileges *at all*. And therefore, containers can run with a reduced
|
|
capability set; meaning that "root" within a container has much less
|
|
privileges than the real "root". For instance, it is possible to:
|
|
|
|
- deny all "mount" operations;
|
|
- deny access to raw sockets (to prevent packet spoofing);
|
|
- deny access to some filesystem operations, like creating new device
|
|
nodes, changing the owner of files, or altering attributes (including
|
|
the immutable flag);
|
|
- deny module loading;
|
|
- and many others.
|
|
|
|
This means that even if an intruder manages to escalate to root within a
|
|
container, it will be much harder to do serious damage, or to escalate
|
|
to the host.
|
|
|
|
This won't affect regular web apps; but malicious users will find that
|
|
the arsenal at their disposal has shrunk considerably! You can see [the
|
|
list of dropped capabilities in the Docker
|
|
code](https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/blob/v0.5.0/lxc_template.go#L97),
|
|
and a full list of available capabilities in [Linux
|
|
manpages](http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/capabilities.7.html).
|
|
|
|
Of course, you can always enable extra capabilities if you really need
|
|
them (for instance, if you want to use a FUSE-based filesystem), but by
|
|
default, Docker containers will be locked down to ensure maximum safety.
|
|
|
|
## Other Kernel Security Features
|
|
|
|
Capabilities are just one of the many security features provided by
|
|
modern Linux kernels. It is also possible to leverage existing,
|
|
well-known systems like TOMOYO, AppArmor, SELinux, GRSEC, etc. with
|
|
Docker.
|
|
|
|
While Docker currently only enables capabilities, it doesn't interfere
|
|
with the other systems. This means that there are many different ways to
|
|
harden a Docker host. Here are a few examples.
|
|
|
|
- You can run a kernel with GRSEC and PAX. This will add many safety
|
|
checks, both at compile-time and run-time; it will also defeat many
|
|
exploits, thanks to techniques like address randomization. It
|
|
doesn't require Docker-specific configuration, since those security
|
|
features apply system-wide, independently of containers.
|
|
- If your distribution comes with security model templates for LXC
|
|
containers, you can use them out of the box. For instance, Ubuntu
|
|
comes with AppArmor templates for LXC, and those templates provide
|
|
an extra safety net (even though it overlaps greatly with
|
|
capabilities).
|
|
- You can define your own policies using your favorite access control
|
|
mechanism. Since Docker containers are standard LXC containers,
|
|
there is nothing “magic” or specific to Docker.
|
|
|
|
Just like there are many third-party tools to augment Docker containers
|
|
with e.g. special network topologies or shared filesystems, you can
|
|
expect to see tools to harden existing Docker containers without
|
|
affecting Docker's core.
|
|
|
|
## Conclusions
|
|
|
|
Docker containers are, by default, quite secure; especially if you take
|
|
care of running your processes inside the containers as non-privileged
|
|
users (i.e. non root).
|
|
|
|
You can add an extra layer of safety by enabling Apparmor, SELinux,
|
|
GRSEC, or your favorite hardening solution.
|
|
|
|
Last but not least, if you see interesting security features in other
|
|
containerization systems, you will be able to implement them as well
|
|
with Docker, since everything is provided by the kernel anyway.
|
|
|
|
For more context and especially for comparisons with VMs and other
|
|
container systems, please also see the [original blog post](
|
|
http://blog.docker.io/2013/08/containers-docker-how-secure-are-they/).
|