Skip to content

Run as a non-root user#69

Open
yo8192 wants to merge 8 commits intoshenxn:masterfrom
yo8192:master
Open

Run as a non-root user#69
yo8192 wants to merge 8 commits intoshenxn:masterfrom
yo8192:master

Conversation

@yo8192
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@yo8192 yo8192 commented Dec 3, 2022

This is a best security practice for Docker images.

yo8192 and others added 6 commits July 25, 2021 17:42
Update from shenxn/protonmail-bridge-docker
It is best security practice to run the process in docker as non-root.
* Bump build version to 3.0.5

* Bump build version to 3.0.6

* Bump build version to 3.0.7

Co-authored-by: GitHub Actions <actions@github.com>
@shenxn
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

shenxn commented Jan 14, 2023

Yes. This is definitely a good idea but it is going to be a breaking change. I'll hold this change and see what we can do to make sure existing users are happy with this.

olivervhansen added a commit to olivervhansen/protonmail-bridge-docker that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2023
olivervhansen added a commit to olivervhansen/protonmail-bridge-docker that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2023
@mark-monteiro
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

It would be ideal if the user/group id used was configurable (i.e. via environment variables UID and GID).

This would also be a good route to maintaining backwards compatibility. If neither value is set, the default is to run as root.

* Bump build version to 3.0.10

* Bump build version to 3.0.12

* Bump build version to 3.0.14

* Bump build version to 3.0.15

* Bump build version to 3.0.16

* Bump deb version to 3.0.17-1

* Bump build version to 3.0.18

* Bump deb version to 3.0.19-1

* Bump build version to 3.0.19

* Bump deb version to 3.0.20-1

* Bump build version to 3.0.20

* Update Ubuntu tag for deb to fix GLIBC dependency (shenxn#80)

GLIBC dependency issue highlighted in
shenxn#79 is caused
by v3 of the bridge not supporting bionic. This PR simply updates the
"deb" version to match the "build" version which is already on
ubuntu:jammy.

* Bump deb version to 3.0.21-1

* Bump build version to 3.0.21

* Bump build version to 3.1.0

* Bump build version to 3.1.1

* Bump deb version to 3.1.2-1

* Bump build version to 3.1.2

* Add a docker compose file (shenxn#70)

It's quite the norm to include a docker-compose file, generally in the
README or the root for people to copy and modify. For example as
https://github.com/wfg/docker-openvpn-client has done so.

If there are [Environmental
variables](https://github.com/wfg/docker-openvpn-client#environment-variables),
they should also be documented - in this case there isn't.

* Bump deb version to 3.1.3-1

* Bump build version to 3.1.3

* Bump build version to 3.2.0

* Bump deb version to 3.2.0-1

* Bump build version to 3.3.0

* Bump deb version to 3.3.0-1

* Bump build version to 3.3.1

* Bump deb version to 3.3.2-1

* Bump build version to 3.3.2

* Bump build version to 3.4.0

* Bump build version to 3.4.1

* Bump build version to 3.4.2

* Bump build version to 3.5.0

* Bump deb version to 3.4.2-1

* Bump build version to 3.5.1

* Bump deb version to 3.5.1-1

* Bump deb version to 3.4.2-1

* Bump build version to 3.5.2

* Bump deb version to 3.5.3-1

* Bump build version to 3.5.3

* Bump build version to 3.6.0

* Bump deb version to 3.5.4-1

* Bump build version to 3.6.1

* Bump deb version to 3.6.1-2

* Bump build version to 3.7.0

* Bump build version to 3.7.1

* Bump deb version to 3.7.1-1

* Bump build version to 3.8.0

* Bump build version to 3.8.1

* Bump deb version to 3.8.1-1

* Bump build version to 3.9.0

* Bump deb version to 3.8.2-1

---------

Co-authored-by: GitHub Actions <actions@github.com>
Co-authored-by: Aziz Hasanain <sgtaziz013@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Daniel Nathan Gray <dng@disroot.org>
@simonfelding
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Hey @yo8192 and @mark-monteiro - @shenxn gave me maintainer access to this repo, so we can work on solving this now.

Agree this is best practice and a priority. However, this solution is problematic because it changes paths around, which is not very practical. I think we should work on making a more backwards compatible solution - see my PR #110, which I'm going to continue working on. I'm going to keep this PR open for now, but I don't think we should continue with this exact solution.

@xbc5
Copy link
Copy Markdown

xbc5 commented Apr 21, 2025

It would be nice if you could expedite this.

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 this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants