Bottomley: Containers and Cloud Security

On his blog, James Bottomley looks at the value proposition for various types of cloud deployments. In particular, he compares the vertical and horizontal attack profile (VAP and HAP) of four different models: separate servers, separate logins on a single server, virtual machines, and containers. He finds the container story to be compelling: "The total VAP here is identical to that of physical infrastructure. However, the Tenant component is much smaller (the kernel accounting for around 50% of all vulnerabilities). It is this reduction in the Tenant VAP that makes containers so appealing: the CSP [cloud service provider] is now responsible for monitoring and remediating about half of the physical system VAP which is a great improvement for the Tenant. Plus when the CSP remediates on the host, every container benefits at once, which is much better than having to crack open every virtual machine image to do it. Best of all, the Tenant images don’t have to be modified to benefit from these fixes, simply running on an updated CSP host is enough. However, the cost for this is that the HAP is the entire linux kernel syscall interface meaning the HAP is much larger than then hypervisor virtual infrastructure case because the latter benefits from interface narrowing to only the hypercalls (qualitatively, assuming the hypercall interface is ~30 calls and the syscall interface is ~300 calls, then the HAP is 10x larger in the container case than the hypervisor case); however, thanks to protections from the kernel namespace code, the HAP is less than the shared login server case. Best of all, from the Tenant point of view, this entire HAP cost is borne by the CSP, which makes this an incredible deal: not only does the Tenant get a significant reduction in their VAP but the CSP is hugely motivated to keep on top of all vulnerabilities in their part of the VAP and remediate very fast because of the business implications of a successful horizontal attack."