Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Request: Use the Alpine build of BusyBox for greater security #50

Open
liam-verta opened this issue Aug 4, 2022 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #51
Open

Request: Use the Alpine build of BusyBox for greater security #50

liam-verta opened this issue Aug 4, 2022 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #51

Comments

@liam-verta
Copy link

The Alpine project is very responsive to vulnerability reports and has been releasing patched versions of BusyBox that address critical vulnerabilities. CVE-2022-28391 was reported over 4 months ago and is still unpatched in BusyBox 1.34.x and 1.35.0 releases. Meanwhile, Alpine patched their BusyBox build almost as soon as the vulnerability was published: https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/issues/13661

This image doesn't have to use Alpine in general but it should consider using the Alpine build of the BusyBox executable for greater security.

@liam-verta liam-verta changed the title Request: Use the Alpine version of BusyBox for better vulnerability remediation Request: Use the Alpine build of BusyBox for greater security Aug 4, 2022
@SuperQ
Copy link
Member

SuperQ commented Aug 5, 2022

Hmm, I'm not totally opposed to this. But the question is, how to extract/build this.

@discordianfish
Copy link
Member

We might also finally just switch to a from scratch image.. The node-exporter is really the last container I ever feel the need to exec into and now with ephemeral containers in kubernetes even in these situations it shouldn't matter. But it would be a breaking change..

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants