Comment on Alternative to ClamAV?
just_another_person@lemmy.world 1 year agoThe problem if you’re presenting this to people as a solution to a question that has zero to with the valid applications of containers, which you just mentioned. Containers have a purpose, sure. I’m not arguing against that. What I’m incensed by is devs commenting similar awful solutions to a legit problem, and it’s increasingly becoming “use a container for that” for almost any concern, which is not only sending people down the wrong road, it’s just poor advice.
jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 1 year ago
I respectfully disagree. Containers are 100% the right choice in this situation. They provide the defense-in-depth and access controls that combat the threats that OP is targeting by using ClamAV.
The goal isn’t securing a single database through a single attack vector. And it’s not like ClamAV would help you with that, either. The goal is preventing attackers from using your infra’s broad attack surface to get inside, and then persisting and pivoting to get to that database.
It’s just not true that you can get the same level of security by running everything bare-metal, especially as a one-man, self-hosted operation.
Chobbes@lemmy.world 1 year ago
jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 1 year ago
I think Lemmy is glitching out here. My comment was a reply to a now deleted comment by just_another_person. It seems that after the comment was deleted, it messed up how the thread appears. Sorry for the confusion.
Chobbes@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Ah! No worries! I’ve had similar issues with lemmy before.
just_another_person@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Friend, I’m not trying to be rude here, but not only are you failing to understand to question from OP, you’re failing to understand the implications of what you’re also proposing with a container. OP wants to scan static files with an AV solution.
Are you proposing that they store ALL the files from their file server in a container? Are you suggesting they mount the volume to the container at runtime in order to access and scan them? Both are ridiculous solutions for different reasons. The former is just idiotic because it immediately removes the safety of said files and makes the container non-portable, and the latter because you’re just adding a container as overhead with zero benefit or added security to the host instance, just to scan files at regular intervals. A container with a volume mount is exactly the same thing as running the file servers on the host OS. You’re not making any sense.
jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 1 year ago
OP is asking for a guard dog to keep robbers from walking through their unlocked door. I’m telling OP to just lock their door and don’t bother with a guard dog.
just_another_person@lemmy.world 1 year ago
And what you’re suggesting achieves none of that, so I’m confused on why you think running a container is guarding anything.