[slurm-users] Heterogeneous HPC
mahmood.nt at gmail.com
Fri Sep 20 07:11:41 UTC 2019
I appreciate the repplies.
I will try to test Charliecloud to see what is what...
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 10:37 Fulcomer, Samuel <samuel_fulcomer at brown.edu>
> Thanks! and I'll watch the video...
> Privileged containers!.... never!....
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 9:06 PM Michael Jennings <mej at lanl.gov> wrote:
>> On Thursday, 19 September 2019, at 19:27:38 (-0400),
>> Fulcomer, Samuel wrote:
>> > I obviously haven't been keeping up with any security concerns over the
>> > of Singularity. In a 2-3 sentence nutshell, what are they?
>> So before I do that, if you have a few minutes, I do think you'll find
>> it worth your time to go to https://youtu.be/H6VrjowOOF4?t=2361 (it'll
>> start about 39 minutes in) and watch at least those next 8 or so minutes.
>> I go into some detail about the security track records of multiple
>> container runtimes and provide factual data so that folks can make their
>> own risk assessments rather than just giving my personal opinion. (The
>> video does cut off the right side of the slides, but the slide deck is
>> available at
>> for anyone interested.)
>> If you really don't want to watch the video, though, I can provide a few
>> of the data points.
>> First off, if you have not read it before, you really should read
>> Matthias Gerstner's assessment after doing a code review and security
>> audit on Singularity 2.6.0 to see if it could be packaged for SuSE:
>> The quotes I used on the slide for my talk came from comments he made in
>> the linked SuSE Bugzilla bug -- which, for unknown reasons, was
>> re-locked by SuSE after previously being unlocked once the bug report
>> was public! -- regarding whether or not, and under what constraints, to
>> include and support Singularity on SuSE. Matthias is a widely respected
>> security expert in the OSS community, so I trust his assessment and
>> insight. And his audit alone found 5 or 6 CVE-worthy vulnerabilities at
>> Additionally, as I mentioned in the video, during the 3-year period
>> 2016-2018, there were at least 17 different vulnerabilities found in
>> Singularity. Also, of the 9 releases they did during 2018, 7 of those
>> were security releases to fix vulnerabilities (and frequently more than
>> 1 at a time). That's...not great. Especially in an environment like
>> ours where saying "security is important" is an understatement of
>> nuclear proportions! ;-)
>> And finally, while we were hopeful that the rewrite in Go (version 3.0
>> and above) would correct the security failings in the code, there've
>> already been multiple serious vulnerabilities (all grouped together
>> under a single CVE identifier, CVE-2019-11328), at least one of which
>> was essentially a replica of one of the flaws fixed in 2.6.0 under
>> CVE-2018-12021! And you don't need to take my word for it, either:
>> It's hard to say if the above trend will continue...but not all sites
>> can afford to take those kinds of risks.
>> And while Shifter's security track record is spotless to date, I would
>> still summarize the overall lesson to be learned as, "Don't use
>> privileged container runtimes. Use user namespaces. That's what
>> they're there for." And before anyone yells at me, yes I know
>> Singularity advertises user namespace support and non-setuid operation.
>> But it doesn't seem to be very widely used or adequately exercised, and
>> AFAICT the default mode of operation in both RPMs and build-from-src is
>> via setuid binaries. So using a natively unprivileged runtime still
>> seems the less risky choice, in my personal assessment.
>> Yes, I know that was more than a "2-3 sentence nutshell," but hopefully
>> it was helpful anyway! :-)
>> Michael E. Jennings <mej at lanl.gov>
>> HPC Systems Team, Los Alamos National Laboratory
>> Bldg. 03-2327, Rm. 2341 W: +1 (505) 606-0605
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the slurm-users