this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
213 points (90.5% liked)

Selfhosted

40347 readers
340 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
213
PSA: Docker nukes your firewall rules and replaces them with its own. (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I use nftables to set my firewall rules. I typically manually configure the rules myself. Recently, I just happened to dump the ruleset, and, much to my surprise, my config was gone, and it was replaced with an enourmous amount of extremely cryptic firewall rules. After a quick examination of the rules, I found that it was Docker that had modified them. And after some brief research, I found a number of open issues, just like this one, of people complaining about this behaviour. I think it's an enourmous security risk to have Docker silently do this by default.

I have heard that Podman doesn't suffer from this issue, as it is daemonless. If that is true, I will certainly be switching from Docker to Podman.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] justJanne@startrek.website 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That assumes you're on some VPS with a hardware firewall in front.

Often enough you're on a dedicated server that's directly exposed to the internet, with those iptables rules being the only thing standing between your services and the internet.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl -4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What difference does it make if you open the ports yourself for the services you expose, or Docker does it for you? That's all that Docker is meant to do, act as convenience so you don't have to add/remove rules as the containers go up/down, or remember Docker interfaces.

If by any chance you are making services listen on 0.0.0.0 and covering them up with a firewall that's very bad practice.

[–] justJanne@startrek.website 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There's no alternative for 0.0.0.0 and a firewall if you're e.g. using kubernetes.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl -4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm fairly sure you can find an alternative to whatever problem you're having.

[–] justJanne@startrek.website 5 points 8 months ago

You need to be able to have multiple nodes in one LAN access ports on each others' containers without exposing those to the world and without using additional firewalls in front of the nodes.

That's why kubernetes ended up removing docker support and instead recommends podman or using containerd natively.