I mean, thatâs true regardless of how it is running. If the service is externally available, it will be probed for vulnerabilities. At least with a container, you can ward off what files it has access to, so an attacker canât just ransomware your entire NAS with a single vulnerable service.
Containers = Yet Another Attack Surface.
Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.com â¨2⊠â¨months⊠ago
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today â¨1⊠â¨month⊠ago
And thaaaatâs why itâs head/tailscale or nothing for me. Iâm smart enough to know I donât know enough to be absolutely confident I wonât get SHODANâd and end up crying over a data catastrophe, never feeling truly secure ever again.
Every now and then itâs tempting to get those fun features in containers like Nextcloud, like public links and federation, but itâs not worth the risk IMHO. Not when thereâs state-class adversarial bots written by stupidly smart people roaming the landscape. <_<
4am@lemmy.zip â¨2⊠â¨months⊠ago
Eh, containers are fine if you know what youâre doing. Just run them in a VM if you want more isolation.
Definitely not for the average user though.
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world â¨1⊠â¨month⊠ago
So youâre offering to manage my ~40 services, and make sure that all the dependencies are met - and none conflictâŚ?
I mean, I enjoy hosting things myself, but Iâm not going to invite issues that have been resolved by simple solutions. Iâve been around the block with dependency hell, fuck all of that. Now if I was getting paid like 6 figures instead of zero, sure boss, whatever the fuck you say boss, job security all day long. But unless youâre offering, Iâm sticking with the easy way.