trillian VS Moby

Archived. Not sure when. :( I'm not sure what if anything is a decent replacement/substitute.

In the README examples I see text about what I think is Certificate Transparency. That was definitely the first thing this made me think of. There's also a lot of talk in the project about CONIKS[1], & associate research papers are about 'bringing key transparency to end users'.

The scenarios[2] are interesting, but I'm not sure fully how this project helps. They explicitly call out Upspin for encrypted storage, which was linked recently[3].

It appears to make heavy use of the Trillian cryptographically verifiable data store[4].

[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/04/coniks.html

[2] https://github.com/google/keytransparency/blob/master/docs/s...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31520559

[4] https://github.com/google/trillian

Related is Google Trillian: https://github.com/google/trillian

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37058322/how-can-i-verif...

CT (Certificate Transparency) is another approach to validating certs wherein x.509 cert logs are written to a consistent, available blockchain (or in e.g. google/trillian, a centralized db where one party has root and backup responsibilities also with Merkle hashes for verifying data integrity). https://certificate.transparency.dev/ https://github.com/google/trillian

Does docker ever make the docker socket available over the network, over an un-firewalled port by default?

Yeah, right on!

We're looking in more depth at other use cases, developing a better understanding of which types of problems this might be useful for, and ways to reason about the properties you want/get from using systems like this (e.g. https://github.com/google/trillian/tree/master/docs/claimant...)

[Disclaimer: I work on CT, Trillian, and some other related projects]

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...