You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 10, 2022. It is now read-only.
Is this a BUG REPORT or FEATURE REQUEST?:
/kind feature
What happened:
AppArmor is a Mandatory Access Control (MAC) system which is a kernel (LSM) enhancement to confine programs to a limited set of resources. AppArmor's security model is to bind access control attributes to programs rather than to users. AppArmor confinement is provided via profiles loaded into the kernel, typically on boot. AppArmor profiles can be in one of two modes: enforcement and complain. Profiles loaded in enforcement mode will result in enforcement of the policy defined in the profile as well as reporting policy violation attempts (either via syslog or auditd). Profiles in complain mode will not enforce policy but instead report policy violation attempts.
AppArmor can help you to run a more secure deployment by restricting what containers are allowed to do, and/or provide better auditing through system logs. However, it is important to keep in mind that AppArmor is not a silver bullet and can only do so much to protect against exploits in your application code. It is important to provide good, restrictive profiles, and harden your applications and cluster from other angles as well.
In short, AppArmor could be leveraged in concert with a MutatingAdmissionWebhook to apply additional restrictions against created containers (e.g. preventing access to certain directories, writing to files, etc.).
Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a mechanism for applying AppArmor profiles to the various worker nodes. While we can manually apply profiles on a per-worker basis (through SSH) these profiles won't persist through VM resurrection.
What you expected to happen:
It would be nice to have a mechanism by which we can export AppArmor profiles to every worker node during deployment. The profiles should be operator-providable.
How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible):
The AppArmor Example shows the basic steps involved in applying AppArmor profiles and leveraging the Kubernetes integration.
Environment:
CFCR version: 0.17.0
Kubernetes version (use kubectl version): 1.10.3
Cloud provider (e.g. aws, gcp, vsphere): all
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is this a BUG REPORT or FEATURE REQUEST?:
/kind feature
What happened:
Kubernetes is integrated with AppArmor
In short, AppArmor could be leveraged in concert with a MutatingAdmissionWebhook to apply additional restrictions against created containers (e.g. preventing access to certain directories, writing to files, etc.).
Our Stemcells currently support AppArmor:
And we can apply an AppArmor profile:
Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a mechanism for applying AppArmor profiles to the various worker nodes. While we can manually apply profiles on a per-worker basis (through SSH) these profiles won't persist through VM resurrection.
What you expected to happen:
It would be nice to have a mechanism by which we can export AppArmor profiles to every worker node during deployment. The profiles should be operator-providable.
How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible):
The AppArmor Example shows the basic steps involved in applying AppArmor profiles and leveraging the Kubernetes integration.
Environment:
kubectl version
): 1.10.3aws
,gcp
,vsphere
): allThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: