Re:EC2 Dedicated Hosts
by omarforgotpwd on Monday November 23, 2015 @07:02PM
(#10618243)
I'm sure Amazon would love it too (think about how much money they could save / make) but there are a lot of security concerns that need to be addressed. Running code in a virtualized kernel is a lot more secure than running in the real kernel with permissions limited. Theoretically an exploit could allow someone to take over the machine, whereas if the machine is virtualized it's much harder to take over the host.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:EC2 Dedicated Hosts
by toomuchtodo on Monday November 23, 2015 @07:16PM
(#10618288)
Doesn't matter if the machine is taken over if its properly contained at the network level. Dedicated server hosting companies have been doing this for years.
With VMs the customer can share a physical host with others and not have security concerns. This cohosting lets aws pack customers more efficiently and have much better margins for the same quality service.
With containers on bare metal, they could not cohost customers.
Re:EC2 Dedicated Hosts
by toomuchtodo on Monday November 23, 2015 @07:33PM
(#10618356)
Uhh, even with containers you really can't cohost in a multi-tenant system. Containerization doesn't securely segregate arbitrary code in the same way traditional virtualization does, and there are still security issues with that.
I'm sure AWS is improving on this, as they need to with Lambda and its underlying containerization architecture. But everyone else? Its going to be a while before you can call it "secure".
It looks like you are in violent agreement
Re:EC2 Dedicated Hosts
by toomuchtodo on Monday November 23, 2015 @08:16PM
(#10618538)
We are! And I love that phrase :)
Amazon offers billing by the hour for those, meaning they probably move between customers a lot more than traditional dedicated servers. A bare-metal user can do lot of bad things unless you trust your hardware manufacturing 100 %, e.g. by messing with the firmware.
Re:EC2 Dedicated Hosts
by toomuchtodo on Monday November 23, 2015 @08:22PM
(#10618557)
At the hardware purchasing level Amazon operates with for AWS hardware, I'm sure they're able to (if they required it) spec custom BIOS requirements that perform integrity verification of subsystems before permitting power up to continue. Whether they do or not is a different question (although I'm sure someone could test this theory).
They could also just spec that firmware be stored on ROM rather than flash.
Or that a hardware jumper needs to be set on the motherboard before any firmware updates can be done.
Rackspace offers a cloud cum bare metal service called OnMetal. They flash the firmware before putting a new user on a machine.
Re:EC2 Dedicated Hosts
by paulannesley on Monday November 23, 2015 @08:05PM
(#10618505)
Unless “the machine is taken over” means firmware-level compromise (e.g. disk controller, NIC controller, …), in which case the next customer allocated to that machine can be compromised despite full disk erase between customers.
Re:EC2 Dedicated Hosts
by toomuchtodo on Monday November 23, 2015 @08:06PM
(#10618509)
I'll agree with this attack vector, although it'd be trivial to have your PXE boot routine between customers re-apply known good firmware to the NIC and disk controller and verify with checksums (unless there's a 0-day out there for the NIC controller, in which case you're owned regardless).
Normally the PXE boot code is, itself, stored in firmware.
Re:EC2 Dedicated Hosts
by toomuchtodo on Monday November 23, 2015 @10:24PM
(#10618968)
Whatever components start first, wins. If the PXE boot code is in the NIC, you can theoretically verify the rest of the system first. If its in the BIOS, the BIOS needs to trust the NIC as untrusted/determine if its compromised or not.
Security is hard :/
ROM based NIC? Why not? If you're going into large scale dedicated servers, this is not exactly impractical. You could probably also just disconnect the flash enable pins on the ICs.
Assuming the firmware has no say in the flashing process.
Re:EC2 Dedicated Hosts
by omarforgotpwd on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @01:12PM
(#10622395)
It definitely does matter if the host machine is taken over... an attacker could access other customer instances, shut down the system to try and shut down EC2, etc..
Re:EC2 Dedicated Hosts
by andrewstuart2 on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @02:36PM
(#10623035)
If I've paid for the bare metal machine then by definition I already have root on the host machine. Securing that is just as much my problem at that point as is securing my EC2 instances.
Re:EC2 Dedicated Hosts
by andrewstuart2 on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @02:45PM
(#10623089)
The security concern you mention (taking over the host) is moot if I've paid for root access to a physical machine (bare metal). By definition I've already paid for the host; there's nothing else to break out of.
SDN could easily be handled by an off-system component. I forget who, but someone who presented at ONS 2015 [1] mentioned the use of FPGAs for this.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhigroIsbIuet0qlIGBQi...