runc VS skopeo

I can speak to this. Containers, and by extension k8s, break a well known security boundary that has existed for a very long time - whether you are using a real (hardware) server or a virtual machine on the cloud if you pop that instance/server generally speaking you only have access to that server. Yeh, you might find a db config with connection details if you landed on say a web app host but in general you still have to work to start popping the next N servers.

That's not the case when you are running in k8s and the last container breakout was just announced ~1 month ago: https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/security/advisories/G... .

At the end of the day it is simply not a security boundary. It can solve other problems but not security ones.

It's interesting that, in light of things like this, you still see large software companies adding support for new components written in non-memory safe languages (e.g. C)

As an example Red Hat OpenShift added support for crun(https://github.com/containers/crun) this year(https://cloud.redhat.com/blog/whats-new-in-red-hat-openshift...), which is written in C as an alternative to runc, which is written in Go(https://github.com/opencontainers/runc)...

Rabbit hole indeed. That wasn't related to my job at the time, lol. The job change came with a company-provided computer and that put an end to the tinkering.

BTW, I found my hacks to make runc run on Chromebook: https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/compare/main...gabrys...

being the main author of crun, I can clarify that statement: I am not a fan of Go _for this particular use case_.

Using C instead of Go avoided a bunch of the workarounds that exists in runc to workaround the Go runtime, e.g. https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/blob/main/libcontaine...

runc

Not OP, but if I had to guess, a lot of this can be picked up by just observing common security issues in the Linux space, since similar mistakes and oversights have caused quite a few real-world CVEs in the past, e.g. this random example of a TOCTTOU vulnerability in runc.

I decided to go searching for an alternative means to pull a docker image. In my search I discovered Skopeo, an alternative method to download Docker images that proved to be surprisingly effective. It not only downloaded the image faster, it also allowed me to save my image in a tar file, which means you can pull an image on one system and share that image to another system, loading it easily to docker instance on that system. This can be very beneficial if you have multiple systems and don't want to download an image multiple times.

But I'd suggest looking into if it's solved by other tools already, like regclient/regclient and their regsync features or something like containers/skopeo.

Have a use case where we have a CLI (built with cobra) for our dev teams which can execute common tasks. One of those tasks we want to implement is to copy docker images from the internet to our internal registry. A tool such as skopeo can do this and much more. Instead of essentially re-writing the functionality directly into our CLI we'd like to embed it. This would also negate the need for the dev teams to manage multiple CLI tools.

Self hoisting here, I put this together to make it easier to generate single (extra) layer docker images without needing a docker agent, capabilities, chroot, etc: https://github.com/andrewbaxter/dinker

Caveat: it doesn't work on Fly.io. They seem to be having some issue with OCI manifests: https://github.com/containers/skopeo/issues/1881 . They're also having issues with new docker versions pushing from CI: https://community.fly.io/t/deploying-to-fly-via-github-actio... ... the timing of this post seems weird.

FWIW the article says

> create a Docker image, also known as an OCI image

I don't think this is quite right. From my investigation, Docker and OCI images are basically content addressed trees, starting with a root manifest that points to other files and their hashes (root -> images -> layers -> layer configs + files). The OCI manifests and configs are separate to Docker manifests and configs and basically Docker will support both side by side.

skopeo is another tool worth looking into. we've started deploying amd and arm nodes into our k8s clusters, and this tool was incredibly easy to build around for getting multi-arch images into our container registry.

I would use skopeo, the tool is quite handy for working with remote images. https://github.com/containers/skopeo

Using distroless images not only reduces the size of the container image it also reduces the surface attack. The need for container image signing is because even with the distroless images there is a chance of facing some security threats such as receiving a malicious image. We can use cosign or skopeo for container signing and verifying. You can read more about securing containers with Cosign and Distroless Images in this blog.

Look at using tools like skopeo or crane

You could try some commandline tool like skopeo to fetch the image tags regularly and do some shell magic to notify you on any change you want

This is what Podman, an open-source daemonless and rootless container engine, was developed with in mind. Podman runs using the runC container runtime process, directly on the Linux kernel, and launches containers and pods as child processes. In addition, it was developed for the Docker developer, with most commands and syntax seamlessly mirroring Docker's. Buildah, an image builder, and Skopeo, the image utility tool, are both complimentary to Podman as well, and extend the range of operations able to be performed.