Container Security 2018: Threats and Concerns

To better understand which container security areas you should focus on, and why we recommend particular controls, it helps to understand which threats need to be addressed and which areas containers affect most. Some threats and issues are well-known, some are purely lab proofs of concept, and others are threat vectors which attackers have yet to exploit – typically because there is so much low-hanging fruit elsewhere. So what are the primary threats to container environments? Threats to the Build Environment The first area which needs protection is the build environment. It’s not first on most people’s lists for container security, but I start here because it is typically the least secure, and the easiest place to insert malicious code. Developers tend to loathe security in development because it slows them down. That is why there is an entire industry dedicated to test data management and data asking: because developers tend to end-run around security whenever it slows their build and testing processes. What kinds of threats are we talking about, specifically? Things like malicious or moronic source code changes. Malicious or mistaken alterations to automated build controllers. Configuration scripts with errors, or which expose credentials. The addition of insecure libraries or down-rev/insecure versions of existing code. We want to know whether runtime code has been scanned for vulnerabilities. And we worry about failures to audit all the above and catch any errors. Container Workload and Contents What the hell is in the container? What does it do? Is that even the correct version? These are common questions from operations folks. They have no idea. Nor do they know whether developers included tools like ssh in a container so they can alter its contents on the fly. Just as troubling is the difficulty of mapping access rights to OS and host resources by a container, which can break operational security and open up the entire stack to various attacks. Security folks are typically unaware of what – if any – container hardening may have been performed. You want to know each container’s contents have been patched, vetted, hardened, and registered prior to deployment. Runtime Behavior Organizations worry a container will attack or infect another container. They worry a container may quietly exfiltrate data, or just exhibit suspicious behavior. We have seen attacks extract source code, and others add new images to registries – in both cases the platforms were unprotected by identity and access management. Organizations need to confirm that access to the Docker client is sufficiently gated through access controls to limit who controls the runtime environment. They worry about containers running a long time, without rotation to newer patched versions. And whether the network has been properly configured to limit damage from compromise. And also about attackers probing containers, looking for vulnerabilities. Operating System Security Finally, the underlying operating system’s security is a concern. The key question is whether it is configured correctly to restrict each container’s access to the subset of resources it needs, and to effectively block everything else. Customers worry that a container will attack the underlying host OS or the container engine. They worry that the container engine may not sufficiently shield the underlying OS. If an attack on the host platform succeeds it’s pretty much game over for that cluster of containers, and may give malicious code sufficient access to pivot and attack other systems. Orchestration Manager Security A key reason to update and reissue this report is this change in the container landscape, where focus has shifted to orchestration managers which control containers. It sounds odd, but as containers have become a commodity unit of application delivery, organizations have begun to feel they understand containers, and attention has shifted to container management. Attention and innovation have shifted to focus on cluster orchestration, with Kubernetes the poster child for optimizing value and use of containers. But most of the tools are incredibly complex. And like many software product, the focus of orchestration tools is scalability and ease of management – not security. As you probably suspected, orchestration tools bring a whole new set of security issues and vulnerabilities. Insecure default configurations, as well as permission escalation and code injection vulnerabilities, are common. What’s more, most organizations issue certificates, identity tokens and keys from the orchestration manager as containers are launched. We will drill down into these issues and what to do about them in the remainder of this series. Share:

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.