this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37724 readers
775 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It would, but Docker doesn't support it. I'm not sure how this means that the OS was worse.
They are, including its descendants (that includes the FreeBSD 4.8 fork DragonFly BSD).
How is "run this black box of arbitrary software, requiring a kernel module and numerous services" a superior deployment than
tar xf application.tgz
? Just because people do it, people could still do the wrong thing. Not every website is Facebook.No problem. I was genuinely curious.
Docker imposes additional attack vectors to the underlying system, a (for example) backdoored PHP application running inside an OpenBSD
chroot
(OpenBSD runs its built-in web server insidechroot
by default, so web applications can never reach anything outside the web folder anyway) does not, if I understand you correctly. I know that you consider the 1979 technologychroot
to be not modern, but I wonder which security feature is missing.What if nobody maintains the container anymore, although the software itself is still maintained?