Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Proposal to Dockerize ova-webserver #831

Open
anchal-agrawal opened this issue Sep 15, 2017 · 5 comments
Open

Proposal to Dockerize ova-webserver #831

anchal-agrawal opened this issue Sep 15, 2017 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
area/security Management of security functionality and other issues that impact security product/ova Related to the OVA packaging of vSphere Integrated Containers severity/3-moderate Medium usability or functional impact. Potentially has an inconvenient workaround.

Comments

@anchal-agrawal
Copy link
Contributor

anchal-agrawal commented Sep 15, 2017

From @pstroia:

I'm opening this bug to start an open discussion about Dockerizing the two processes in the OVA that listen to port 9443 and 1337.

Those processes are acting as webservers (and currently as root), so if there's any kind of compromise, it would be very beneficial to isolate them from the other processes running in the OVA.

My suggestion is to use docker-compose to spin up both services, binary which is already available at /usr/local/bin/docker-compose.

This bug does not replace #827, even if they are very similar and related. Processes in containers do not need to run as root, so that's why I'm not closing the latter.

Assigning same priority of #827, because at least one of these two needs to be closed for the next release.

bug1958949

@anchal-agrawal anchal-agrawal added area/security Management of security functionality and other issues that impact security product/ova Related to the OVA packaging of vSphere Integrated Containers priority/medium labels Sep 15, 2017
@andrewtchin andrewtchin changed the title Proposal to Dockerize ova-webserver and ova-engine-installer Proposal to Dockerize ova-webserver Dec 4, 2017
@andrewtchin
Copy link
Contributor

We will do this and switch to not running as root at the same time

@hickeng
Copy link
Member

hickeng commented Aug 3, 2018

Nominating for 1.4.3, possibly just for the mitigation that was in #827 as it was requested for the 1.4.0 release but not included.

@zjs zjs added severity/3-moderate Medium usability or functional impact. Potentially has an inconvenient workaround. priority/p1 and removed priority/p3 labels Dec 10, 2018
@renmaosheng renmaosheng added this to the Sprint 40 milestone Dec 18, 2018
@DanielXiao
Copy link
Contributor

During VIC appliance installation, root password is required for verification. So the user who run ova-webserver process must have enough privileges to access the shadow password database, which is currently root user of VIC appliance OS. If I run ova-webserver in a container with a non-root user, it is impossible to access password database of host OS. I would like to skip this issue unless we have better approach to verify root password.
screen shot 2018-12-24 at 4 11 13 pm

@DanielXiao DanielXiao removed this from the Sprint 40 milestone Dec 24, 2018
@DanielXiao
Copy link
Contributor

This is the pending PR to dockerize ova-webserver #2263.
Below is the code to verify root password and I can merge the fix when we have better approach to do it.

cmd := exec.Command("/etc/vmware/verify.py", vicPasswd) 

@hickeng
Copy link
Member

hickeng commented Jan 8, 2019

@DanielXiao Is it viable to use PAM to do this password validation? Anything that allows access to shadow is dangerous.

See the example here: https://www.socketloop.com/tutorials/golang-verify-linux-user-password-again-before-executing-a-program-example

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/security Management of security functionality and other issues that impact security product/ova Related to the OVA packaging of vSphere Integrated Containers severity/3-moderate Medium usability or functional impact. Potentially has an inconvenient workaround.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants