gatekeeper VS Moby

When the Gatekeeper validatingwebhook came up, I was really worried that'd be the issue! Regardless I'd recommend anyone who cares about their cluster not collapsing to change the gatekeeper webhook to only intercept resources you care about: https://github.com/open-policy-agent/gatekeeper/pull/1806

Kyverno adds an extra layer of security where only the allowed type of manifest is deployed onto kubernetes, otherwise, it will reject or we can set validationFailureAction to audit which only logs the policy violation message for reporting. Kubewarden and Gatekeeper are alternative tools available to enforce policies on Kubernetes CRD.

Now, we have the hardest part resolved and let's turn our attention to the OPA Gatekeeper. Gatekeeper uses the OPA Constraint Framework to describe and enforce policy. Right now there are mainly 3 parts we should pay attention:

They enable you to establish the policies and regulations that govern cluster deployments and applications. Using predefined policies, policy engines can dynamically modify or create configurations. Policy engines such as Gatekeeper and Kyverno can be leveraged to meet legal and compliance requirements while maintaining operational flexibility and development speed.

Setup policy around what resource requirements can be requested by an app per environment. OPA and gatekeeper or kyverno can help. Setup access control for who can create or modify apps.

OPA Gatekeeper is an open source, general purpose policy engine. OPA decouples policy decisions from other responsibilities of an application, like those commonly referred to as business logic. OPA works equally well making decisions for Kubernetes, Microservices, functional application authorization and more, thanks to its single unified policy language.

Having been featured in our February 2023, and January 2024 Release Radars, Moby is the original Linux Container runtime. This new version adds a bunch of changes to the Docker CLI and Moby itself with additional features. There's bug fixes and enhancements, with the main thing for users to be on the look out for containers that were created using Docker Engine 25.0.0. These containers might have duplicate MAC addresses, and thus must be recreated. The same goes for those containers created with Moby 25.0+ and with user defined MAC addresses. Read up on all these changes in the release notes.

Formlabs does this as well for their 3d printers, my earliest encounter of this was when Docker started getting popular: https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/master/pkg/namesgenerator/...

Try to use moby instead since that is the engine in Docker.

https://github.com/moby/moby

> Podman is designed to help with this by providing stronger default security settings compared to Docker. Features like rootless containers, user namespaces, and seccomp profiles, while available in Docker, aren't enabled by default and often require extra setup.

Seccomp has been enabled by default since 2015: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/18780

It is true that Rootless isn't enabled by default but its "extra setup" can be done with a single command (`dockerd-rootless-setuptool.sh install`)

Perhaps.

Thing is, https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/670bc0a46c4ca03b75f1e72f73... is using https://github.com/mistifyio/go-zfs which features code like `out, err := zfsOutput("get", "-H", key, d.Name)` (Source: https://github.com/mistifyio/go-zfs/blob/master/zfs.go#L315) to get a single zfs property.

Somebody chose to use a library as abstraction that looks good but is implemented as a MVP (nothing wrong with that). "In the future, we hope to work directly with libzfs" should have raised an alarm somewhere, though.

AppArmor can restrict /proc and this is even used by docker: https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/master/contrib/apparmor/te...