sysbox VS platform-compat

You are probably referring to Sysbox (https://github.com/nestybox/sysbox), which I believe will meet your requirements (systemd, inner containers, security, etc).

Btw, Sysbox is already supported in Docker-Desktop (business tier only), so you can easily do what you want with this instruction:

$ docker run -it --rm -e SYSBOX_SYSCONT_MODE=TRUE nestybox/ubuntu-focal-systemd-docker:latest bash

Disclaimer: I'm Sysbox's co-creator and currently working for Docker.

One project in this space that looked quite promising to me is sysbox[0]. I've used them once for a gitlab runner set-up similar to what is described in their blog[1].

It's currently working great and I have not had any major crashes/incidents for at least the past 8 months.

[0]: https://github.com/nestybox/sysbox

[1]: https://blog.nestybox.com/2020/10/21/gitlab-dind.html

Today, things are very different. Docker-in-Docker has a more secure and safe approach with rootless containers and freemium tools like sysbox. Tools like sysbox let you run Docker-in-Docker without the -privileged flag and optimizes specific scenarios, like running multiple nodes of a Kubernetes cluster as ordinary containers.

Right now I am going with sysbox rootless containers. https://github.com/nestybox/sysbox

We’ve been using Sysbox (https://github.com/nestybox/sysbox) for our Buildkite based CI/CD setup, allows docker-in-docker without privileged containers. Paired with careful IAM/STS design we’ve ended up with isolated job containers with their own IAM roles limited to least-privilege.

A good alternative to the VM approach is to use Kubernetes + Sysbox (a next-gen "runc", free, open-source).

But nowadays there is an option to run such software in containers securely. It's called Sysbox, and it's a new "runc" (the piece of software that creates the containers). I am one of the developers, so I am biased, but I think you'll find it helpful.

DotNet offers the SecureString class to keep a string encrypted in Memory, but as long as the OS does not natively support this concept, the only advantage is that it resides in memory for a shorter time, the disadvantage is that SecureStrings are easier to search for.

Note the KeePass's resistance to the attack mentioned depends on the security of .NET's secure string, which, here's what Microsoft has to say about it (https://github.com/dotnet/platform-compat/blob/master/docs/D...)

As for KeePassXC, last I checked it didn't even bother.

TIL. Looks like the deprecation note recommends MailKit.

Well of course, but it does have to be passed to the module that generates the hashes AD uses in the first place. And as I said, the standard password reset screen is bound to store the password in plain text somewhere as well.

This won’t help you with your question, but I figured I should warn against using send-mailmessage.

points you here.

Some of the reasons for not using Hashtable or other non-generic collection types are outlined here. That's why Microsoft doesn't recommend their usage in new implementations across all of its API documentation.

And if you really want to be secure you need to something better than a SecureString: https://github.com/dotnet/platform-compat/blob/master/docs/DE0001.md