Timeline for Security of LXC compared to OpenVZ
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27, 2023 at 11:19 | comment | added | Paulo Coghi | The answer now reflects my POV in 2023. Things have taken a turn. | |
| Oct 27, 2023 at 9:28 | history | edited | Paulo Coghi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added an update regarding the situation of both OpenVZ and LXC in 2023.
|
| Oct 27, 2023 at 9:19 | history | edited | Paulo Coghi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added an update regarding the situation of both OpenVZ and LXC in 2023.
|
| Oct 30, 2019 at 16:02 | comment | added | Paulo Coghi | 24 vulnerabilities (6 on 2019), of which 14 allows code execution, bypass something, gain of privilege or information, denial of service or directory traversal. | |
| Oct 30, 2019 at 16:00 | comment | added | Paulo Coghi | An equal concerning situation is on the Docker security history: cvedetails.com/product/28125/Docker-Docker.html?vendor_id=13534 | |
| Oct 30, 2019 at 15:57 | comment | added | Paulo Coghi | At the time of writing, it has accumulated 22 vulnerabilities, and 7 of them allow gain of privilege or information, bypass something or denial of service. | |
| Oct 30, 2019 at 15:54 | comment | added | Paulo Coghi | It's sad that Kubernetes, for example, has many concerning vulnerabilities in its history cvedetails.com/product/34016/… | |
| Oct 30, 2019 at 15:43 | comment | added | Paulo Coghi |
Another great news, to me, is that the new company that is maintaining OpenVZ (Virtuozzo) merged all the differences between the paid version and the open one, so now we use prlctl. The paid version only differs on support and distributed storage offer.
|
|
| Oct 30, 2019 at 15:36 | history | edited | Paulo Coghi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 18 characters in body
|
| Oct 30, 2019 at 15:33 | comment | added | Paulo Coghi | And enterpriseai.news/2019/10/18/worm-hits-docker-containers | |
| Oct 30, 2019 at 15:33 | comment | added | Paulo Coghi | I have the same technical perspective as you, about Docker and LXC. Despite the fact that Docker has matured a lot on its features, it inherits LXC's vulnerabilities, as stated in many places, like techbeacon.com/enterprise-it/… | |
| Oct 30, 2019 at 15:30 | comment | added | Paulo Coghi | Thanks for your comment! I am trying to get closer to the OpenVZ maintainers and, in an uncertain future, maybe contribute with something. One item that is in my "todo" list is to create a NodeJS library that integrates the OpenVZ's C SDK, to enable the development of new control panels to manage OpenVZ servers on a modern stack. | |
| Oct 30, 2019 at 13:36 | comment | added | Daniel Alder | Awesome. I like the way how you compared the two, including references, that it's not too much flavoured by your opinion, and that it still results in a very compact answer ;). Too bad I lost track about openvz after support in ubuntu and debian was discontinued due to lxc. And today, (from a usage perspective) docker superseeds lxc in many use-cases (with the same poor security-level as lxc though..) | |
| Oct 30, 2019 at 13:35 | comment | added | Daniel Alder | Additional point: a root user in lxc without uidmap is the same as the root on the host, which brings a lot of problems on devices, syscalls, mounts... | |
| Oct 30, 2019 at 13:31 | vote | accept | Daniel Alder | ||
| Oct 30, 2019 at 12:31 | history | edited | Paulo Coghi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Corrected spelling
|
| Oct 30, 2019 at 12:25 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 30, 2019 at 12:57 | |||||
| Oct 30, 2019 at 12:22 | history | answered | Paulo Coghi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |