[HN Gopher] Bottlerocket - Minimal, immutable Linux OS with veri...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Bottlerocket - Minimal, immutable Linux OS with verified boot
        
       Author : akyuu
       Score  : 122 points
       Date   : 2023-09-23 19:44 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (bottlerocket.dev)
 (TXT) w3m dump (bottlerocket.dev)
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | super_linear wrote:
       | Is anyone successfully using this outside of AWS?
        
       | kulor wrote:
       | Very similar to CoreOS'[1] directive
       | 
       | [1] https://fedoraproject.org/coreos/
        
         | avtar wrote:
         | And Flatcar Linux, derived from CoreOS https://www.flatcar.org/
        
       | evrimoztamur wrote:
       | This looks very interesting but as other commenters pointed out,
       | the path to running it yourself seems to be obscured. Even the
       | GitHub page is listed only on the main page.
       | 
       | I found the VMware instructions at
       | https://github.com/bottlerocket-os/bottlerocket/blob/develop...
        
       | stigz wrote:
       | This seems to still be very much an AWS/Amazon project with no
       | clear path to becoming its own independent thing. For example,
       | you want vulnerability scanning on the OS? Well you can use an
       | Amazon product for that, otherwise *shrug* [1]. So I guess as
       | long as you plan to run Bottlerocket in AWS, you're fine.
       | 
       | I wish the Bottlerocket team would do 1 of 2 things. Either own
       | up that this is just an AWS project, or start to solve for things
       | like this and actually be a product that "runs in the cloud or in
       | your datacenter" as they suggest on their website.
       | 
       | [1] https://bottlerocket.dev/en/faq/#4_2
        
         | insanitybit wrote:
         | It's not like something is stopping one from doing a vuln scan,
         | right? Like, there's something that SSM's in (or uses the admin
         | container) and then runs the scan. Couldn't you just do the
         | same thing?
         | 
         | Genuine questions, I don't know if this is the case or not.
        
           | stigz wrote:
           | That's a good point. And it sounds like it would work to me
           | as well. I don't know the answer either.
           | 
           | I guess my point is the project should be providing a clear
           | path that doesn't involve AWS instead of just stopping short.
        
         | xyzzy123 wrote:
         | To be fair, I think "VM" on the OS for Flatcar / BottleRocket /
         | CoreOS is not a requirement in the same way as on RHEL etc.
         | 
         | Do you want to know if you are patched? Are you running the
         | latest version? If so, you have all the available patches.
         | 
         | I appreciate this can cause difficulties in some regulated
         | domains because there's a "vm" box that needs to be ticked on
         | the compliance worksheet.
         | 
         | Most of the reason we need VM on a "traditional" OS is to
         | handle the fact that they have a very broad configuration space
         | and their software composition can be - and often is - pretty
         | arbitrary (incorporating stuff from a ton of sources / vendors
         | and those versions can move independently).
         | 
         | But that's not how you're supposed to use a container OS.
         | 
         | If you do "extra work" to discover vulnerabilities in "latest",
         | you are not really doing the job of a system owner (whose job
         | is to apply patches from upstream in a timely fashion), you are
         | doing the work of a security researcher.
        
       | garganzol wrote:
       | Website says that the OS does not have a shell. I cannot imagine
       | a useful docker container without at least one shell script
       | inside. So, if there is no shell, doesn't it mean that
       | Bottlerocket is generally unusable except niche scenarios?
        
         | CGamesPlay wrote:
         | The docker containers can have shell scripts inside. The host
         | machine doesn't have a shell. You can bring a docker container
         | with a shell, and run it privileged, to have a shell on the
         | host machine.
        
         | snowstormsun wrote:
         | It's not uncommon to have docker containers without a shell for
         | security reasons. For example distroless.
        
       | katella wrote:
       | Verified boot?
        
         | akyuu wrote:
         | It means there is a full trusted boot chain from the TPM to
         | loading the immutable root filesystem:
         | https://github.com/bottlerocket-os/bottlerocket/blob/develop...
         | 
         | Regular Linux distributions don't have this, even if Secure
         | Boot is enabled: https://0pointer.net/blog/brave-new-trusted-
         | boot-world.html
        
       | sneak wrote:
       | Neither "Get Started" nor the FAQ tell me how to run this.
        
         | belter wrote:
         | https://bottlerocket.dev/en/os/1.15.x/install/quickstart/aws...
        
           | sneak wrote:
           | The site should probably say somewhere that this was built
           | for AWS and AWS only.
           | 
           | Instead it says:
           | 
           | > _Bottlerocket is installed as the base operating system on
           | the machine or instance where your containers themselves are
           | running._
           | 
           | > _Bottlerocket runs in the cloud or in your datacenter._
        
             | akyuu wrote:
             | On the GitHub repo (https://github.com/bottlerocket-
             | os/bottlerocket), there are instructions for using it on
             | VMware and bare metal:
             | 
             | https://github.com/bottlerocket-
             | os/bottlerocket/blob/develop...
             | 
             | https://github.com/bottlerocket-
             | os/bottlerocket/blob/develop...
        
               | jonhohle wrote:
               | On one hand it seems like an ncurses tool to install to a
               | disk seems appropriate. On the other hand, the number of
               | times one of these images would be configured for a
               | company is probably pretty small.
               | 
               | I'll have to spend a bit more time, but this seems like a
               | nice option for orgs that want to run on-prem (e.g. not
               | in cloud), and have a low maintenance container host.
        
       | deanCommie wrote:
       | Great project, but it's been around since 2020:
       | https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2020/08/announcin...
        
       | nathias wrote:
       | how does this compare to nix?
        
         | stigz wrote:
         | I think Nix intention is more general purpose OS and tooling.
         | Bottlerocket is about being just enough of an OS to run
         | containers, and that's it.
        
         | flowless wrote:
         | You could use Nix to build (and manage/update) an OS similar to
         | this.
        
         | blq10 wrote:
         | [dead]
        
         | zsims wrote:
         | Nix has no security guarantees, nor sandboxing primitives. So
         | not really comparable.
        
           | reocha wrote:
           | NixOS supports firejail: https://search.nixos.org/options?cha
           | nnel=23.05&from=0&size=5...
        
       | jacurtis wrote:
       | Bottlerocket does not off FIPS mode like most other enterprise
       | *nix distributions.
       | 
       | Just to save anybody the trouble who needs FIPS approved
       | encryption for host OSes that you use at work for various
       | compliance programs. This makes Bottlerocket a non-starter for
       | us. A very active issue has been open for over 2 years on this
       | and the dev teams don't seem to be convinced that this is
       | important. We even communicated with the dev team through our
       | dedicated AWS reps and they have no interest in adding this.
       | 
       | Here is the open 2+ year thread on this:
       | https://github.com/bottlerocket-os/bottlerocket/issues/1667
        
         | hedora wrote:
         | In my experience with FIPS certification usually requires some
         | changes that undermine security.
         | 
         | If you need it, then you need it, but having the certification
         | is a mildly bad sign in my opinion.
         | 
         | I'm not the only one with this opinion. For instance, the
         | Microsoft Windows team seems to agree:
         | 
         | https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-security-ba...
        
           | akyuu wrote:
           | In the GitHub issue, there is a mention of replacing rustls
           | and Go's crypto library with OpenSSL. That seems like a
           | serious security downgrade.
        
           | throwing_away wrote:
           | Having been around a bunch of former-government people and
           | bumping into FIPS myself a few times (like yubikeys) and
           | reading about it, that's also been my sense, but it's nice to
           | see a formal writeup with examples.
           | 
           | Thanks for the link.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-09-23 23:00 UTC)