this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2025
31 points (97.0% liked)

Selfhosted

49509 readers
687 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hi all !

As of today, I am running my services with rootless podman pods and containers. Each functional stack gets its dedicated user (user cloud runs a pod with nextcloud-fpm, nginx, postgresql...) with user mapping. Now, my thought were that if an attack can escape a container, it should be contained to a specific user.

Is it really meaningful ? With service users' home setup in /var/lib, it makes a lot of small stuff annoying and I wonder if the current setup is really worth it ?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SMillerNL@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Af an attack can escape a container a lot of companies worldwide are going to need to patch a 0-day. I do not expect that to be part of my threat model for self-hosted services.

[–] mat@jlai.lu 3 points 2 days ago

I guess I should define my threat model first. Your answer pulls me towards a single user though

load more comments (3 replies)