Re:Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Do...
by lima on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @10:00AM
(#13071246)
This makes me feel good about going with CentOS for Docker. Red Hat has a custom, stable Docker version which is rock-solid (albeit somewhat old, 1.10).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Do...
by EtienneK on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @10:57AM
(#13071719)
Center for Internet Security Docker Benchmark, rule 1.5: Keep Docker up to date [1]
[1] https://benchmarks.cisecurity.org/tools2/docker/CIS_Docker_1...
Re:Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Do...
by tcrews on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @11:09AM
(#13071850)
"Keep a tab on these product updates and upgrade as frequently as when new security
vulnerabilities are fixed."
Re:Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Do...
by lima on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @11:54AM
(#13072303)
Backports. I saw Docker break more than once after supposedly stable releases with security fixes.
Re:Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Do...
by bigmac on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @05:14PM
(#13075215)
Do not use Docker distributed by Red Hat, full stop. It has been irresponsibly patched to be insecure. They disable important seccomp filters.
Instead, install using instructions here: https://docs.docker.com/engine/installation/linux/centos/#/i...
Re:Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Do...
by raesene6 on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @10:08AM
(#13071316)
Depending on your use case, that may not be such a great idea. Unless Red Hat have back-ported it, 1.10 misses several important security advances that have come into Docker in recent versions...
Re:Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Do...
by SEJeff on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @11:39AM
(#13072144)
Redhat also has a lot of security features not in upstream docker due to docker, inc not accepting them:
Source: https://github.com/projectatomic/docker/tree/410e23a7eeb52d4...
Re:Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Do...
by justincormack on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @12:52PM
(#13072889)
That seccomp patch reduces rather than increases security. None of the others, other than back ports, are security features.
Re:Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Do...
by SEJeff on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @02:45PM
(#13073990)
Disabling the docker hub certainly is.
Re:Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Do...
by justincormack on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @05:38PM
(#13075362)
In what way? It changes a default, but it only changes namespaces, not security.
Re:Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Do...
by fapjacks on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @01:49PM
(#13073479)
Red Hat has a vested interest in the failure of Docker. So... It's up to you if you want to continue using (or trusting!) any "Docker" software released by Red Hat.
Re:Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Do...
by marcoceppi on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @10:04AM
(#13071279)
Somewhat old? That's basically ancient.
Re:Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Do...
by alexellisuk on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @10:23AM
(#13071415)
Technically runc and the Kernel are setting up/providing your containers. Docker Engine is a platform for managing containers/images.
Re:Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Do...
by user5994461 on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @10:51AM
(#13071670)
docker-engine is the name of the package.
Re:Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Do...
by therealmarv on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @11:16AM
(#13071908)
When going CS Docker Engine you also have the latest (CS) Engine: https://docs.docker.com/cs-engine/install/