PSA: Update your docker installation. Leaky Vessels flaws allow hackers to escape Docker, runc containers

Submitted ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨redcalcium@lemmy.institute⁩ to ⁨selfhosted@lemmy.world⁩

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/leaky-vessels-flaws-allow-hackers-to-escape-docker-runc-containers/

Snyk team has found four vulnerabilities collectively called “Leaky Vessels” that impact the runc and Buildkit container infrastructure and build tools, potentially allowing attackers to perform container escape on various software products.

On January 31, 2024, Buildkit fixed the flaws with version 0.12.5, and runc addressed the security issue impacting it on version 1.1.12.

Docker released version 4.27.0 on the same day, incorporating the secured versions of the components in its Moby engine, with versions 25.0.1 and 24.0.8.

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

sj_zero ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Honestly, if you're running public facing services, you should run the latest everything you can. There's a risk that stuff breaks, but at least you're not having to worry about patched exploits.
- haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I would add latest, security wise, not everything. That would be a recipe for disaster imo.
  
  source
kevincox@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
If you are relying on Docker as a security boundary you are making a mistake.

Docker isolation is good enough to keep honest people honest but isn’t good enough to keep out malicious actors. The Linux kernel API is simply too large of an attack surface to be highly secure.

If you want to run completely untrusted software you want a VM boundary at a very minimum. Ideally run it on completely separate hardware. There are few exceptions like browser isolation and gVisor which are strong software isolation without a VM but docker or any Linux container runner is not on that list. If the software has direct access to the host kernel it shouldn’t be considered secure.

source
bin_bash@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
again and again … docker is becoming a joke

source
- Fisch@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Every software has security vulnerabilities. The important thing is just that they get fixed quickly when they’re found and it seems like that was the case here.
  
  source
  - acockworkorange@mander.xyz ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    I use <insert obscure software> instead, it has no vulnerabilities!
    
    It has no known vulnerabilities.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
demesisx@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
[deleted]
source
- seedd@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Can you suggest one? I’ve been tinkering with podman, but if there’s something better I’d like to try that too
  
  source
- False@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Runc is native.
  
  source
Shimitar@feddit.it ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Don’t run docker, so far it has proven quite insecure, and that was by design at first because docker was created for development environments and not for deployment.

Later docker added better security, because they understood the value in deployment too. But many distro are still insecure by default and it takes both the effort of sysadmins and image developers to deploy securely docker containers.

I switched to Podman: no daemon, no socket, no root operations out of the box. And the transition is basically seamless too.

source
- redcalcium@lemmy.institute ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I believe podman and containerd use runc so they’re also affected by this container escape vulnerability.
  
  source
  - Shimitar@feddit.it ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Podman can use different tools under the hood, will check which one I am using.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
anzo@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Note that this news are important, I only want to give some peace of mind to the many amateurs self-hosting out there ;) Don’t panic. Think about how such attacker might gain access. There’s always a practical difference between a vulnerability being there and how easily it is exploitable. Most CVEs are theoretical, and combining 4 of them would be even more difficult. From what I read, the vulnerability would be in the Dockerfile itself. Also, you need to weigh in the motivation such attacker would have. If you’re an average netizen is different from a multi billion dollar company website. So, the attacker would need to meet all those conditions described in the CVEs and even in that case, they might escape the container only to find it was installed in rootless mode, so they just have access as regular user. But that’s depending on how docker was installed.

source
- xinayder@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  It’s still not an excuse to just ignore the security update because you might not be affected.
  
  source
  - anzo@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Oh. I didn’t meant to incite breaking any of the golden rules of cyber safety: (1) always update, (2) never host WordPress ;)
    
    source