• 1 Post
  • 73 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 21st, 2021

help-circle






  • The concern is that it would be nice if the UNIX users and LDAP is automatically in sync and managed from a version controlled source. I guess the answer is just build up a static LDAP database from my existing configs. It would be nice to have one authoritative system on the server but I guess as long as they are both built from one source of truth it shouldn’t be an issue.


  • Yes, LDAP is a general tool. But many applications that I am interested in using it for user information. That is what I want to use it for. I’m not really interested in storing other data.

    I think you are sort of missing the goal of the question. I have a bunch of self-hosted services like Jellyfin, qBittorrent, PhotoPrism, Metabase … I want to avoid having to configure users in each one individually. I am considering LDAP because it is supported by many of these services. I’m not concerned about synchronizing UNIX users, I already have that solved. (If I need to move those to LDAP as well that can be considered, but isn’t a goal).


  • I do use a reverse proxy but for various reasons you can’t just block off some apps. For example if you want to play Jellyfin on a Chromecast or similar, or PhotoPrism if you want to use sharing links. Unfortunately these systems are designed around the built-in auth and you can’t just slap a proxy in front.

    I do use nginx with basic with in front of services where I can. I trust nginx much more than 10 different services with varying quality levels. But unfortunately not all services play well.


  • How are you configuring this? I checked for Jellyfin and their are third-party plugins which don’t look too mature, but none of them seem to work with apps. qBittorrent doesn’t support much (actually I may be able to put reverse-proxy auth in front… I’ll look into that) and Metabase locks SSO behind a premium subscription.

    IDK why but it does seem that LDAP is much more widely supported. Or am I missing some method to make it work







  • This is my dream. However I think my target market is smaller and less willing to pay (personal rather than business). However maintenance is low effort and I want the product for myself. So even if it doesn’t make much or anything I think I will be happy to run it forever.

    The ultimate dream would be to make enough to be able to employ someone else part time, so that there could be business continuity if I wasn’t able to run it anymore.


  • kevincox@lemmy.mltoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldSecurity and docker
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    There is definitely isolation. In theory (if containers worked perfectly as intended) a container can’t see any processes from the host, sees different filesystems, possibly a different network interface and basically everything else. There are some things that are shared like CPU, Memory and disk space but these can also be limited by the host.

    But yes, in practice the Linux kernel is wildly complex and these interfaces don’t work quite as well as intended. You get bugs in permission checks and even memory corruption and code execution vulnerabilities. This results in unintended ways for code to break out of containers.

    So in theory the isolation is quite strong, but in practice you shouldn’t rely on it for security critical isolation.


  • kevincox@lemmy.mltoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldSecurity and docker
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    where you have decent trust in the software you’re running.

    I generally say that containers and traditional UNIX users are good enough isolation for “mostly trusted” software. Basically I know that they aren’t going to actively try to escalate their privilege but may contain bugs that would cause problems without any isolation.

    Of course it always depends on your risk. If you are handing sensitive user data and run lots of different services on the same host you may start to worry about remote code execution vulnerabilities and will be interested in stronger isolation so that a RCE in any one service doesn’t allow escalation to access all data being processed by other services on the host.



  • kevincox@lemmy.mltoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldSecurity and docker
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    The Linux kernel is less secure for running untrusted software than a VM because most hypervisors have a far smaller attack surface.

    how many serious organization destroying vulnerabilities have there been? It is pretty solid.

    The CVEs differ? The reasons that most organizations don’t get destroyed is that they don’t run untrusted software on the same kernels that process their sensitive information.

    whatever proprietary software thing you think is best

    This is a ridiculous attack. I never suggested anything about proprietary software. Linux’s KVM is pretty great.


  • kevincox@lemmy.mltoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldSecurity and docker
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think assuming that you are safe because you aren’t aware of any vulnerabilities is bad security practice.

    Minimizing your attack surface is critical. Defense in depth is just one way to minimize your attack surface (but a very effective one). Putting your container inside a VM is excellent defense in depth. Putting your container inside a non-root user barely is because you still have one Linux kernel sized hole in your swiss-cheese defence model.