this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
105 points (92.7% liked)

Selfhosted

60451 readers
982 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:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
105
Docker security (lemmy.zip)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by jobbies@lemmy.zip to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

You're probably already aware of this, but if you run Docker on linux and use ufw or firewalld - it will bypass all your firewall rules. It doesn't matter what your defaults are or how strict you are about opening ports; Docker has free reign to send and receive from the host as it pleases.

If you are good at manipulating iptables there is a way around this, but it also affects outgoing traffic and could interfere with the bridge. Unless you're a pointy head with a fetish for iptables this will be a world of pain, so isn't really a solution.

There is a tool called ufw-docker that mitigates this by manipulating iptables for you. I was happy with this as a solution and it used to work well on my rig, but for some unknown reason its no-longer working and Docker is back to doing its own thing.

Am I missing an obvious solution here?

It seems odd for a popular tool like Docker - that is also used by enterprise - not to have a pain-free way around this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I don't know what the commenter you replied to is talking about, but systemd has it's own firewalling and sandboxing capabilities. They probably mean that they don't use docker for deployment of services at all.

Here is a blogpost about systemd's firewall capabilities: https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/systemd-application-firewall.html

Here is a blogpost about systemd's sandboxing: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/mastering-systemd

Here is the archwiki's docs about drop in units: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Systemd#Drop-in_files

I can understand why someone would like this, but this seems like a lot to learn and configure, whereas podman/docker deny most capabilities and network permissions by default.