Re: Secure blogging - static site generator + Docker

From: Vy-Shane Sin Fat <shane_at_node.mu>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:48:54 +0800

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Ish Sookun <ish_at_hacklog.mu> wrote:

> Hello Shane,
>
> On 7/21/15 10:13 AM, Vy-Shane Sin Fat wrote:
>
>> The poor track record of Wordpress security is a recurring topic in this
>> mailing list, with some members going out of their way to look for
>> alternative blog engines [1]. We also often see reports of Mauritian
>> websites being compromised.
>>
>>
> I'd say Mauritian websites get compromised due to the way they are (not)
> maintained. It could be WordPress, Drupal, Joomla or any other CMS.
>
> Here's an alternative solution what should be very resilient:
>>
>> 1) Use a static site generator like Jekyll [2]
>> 2) Deploy the site as a read-only Docker container
>>
>>
> I doubt that people who were not serious about updating their CMS,
> plugins, themes, would seriously think about setting up something on Jekyll.


Web developers building simple sites for their clients might consider a
tool like Jekyll. Especially if they know that getting a budget approved
for ongoing maintenance is going to be a challenge.


> I have nearly 500 posts (with images & plugins for specific tasks etc) and
> migrating to Jekyll isn't a solution for me. I'd say Jekyll could suit
> someone who is just starting his/her site.
>

Yes.


> Today it's Jekyll, tomorrow we might have another talk-of-the-town which
> could be faster-lighter-more-secured and well maintained. For someone who
> has an existing website with tons of content I would not advise migrating
> but rather be security-conscious and take into consideration all aspects of
> hosting.
>

Jekyll is an implementation detail. There are other similar tools. I'm not
advocating migration to Jekyll. I am pointing out an alternative *approach*
to content management and hosting. One that has some advantages when it
comes to security, deployment and disaster recovery.


> Somebody could think of Jekyll to be "un-breakable" and leave folders
> world-writable. What if tomorrow a vulnerability is discovered in the
> webserver software itself? Therefore rather than saying this is more secure
> than that I'd say choose *one* and plan your project well.
>

Leaving folders world-writeable is moot if the container has a read-only
filesystem. You can't do much in that situation even if you exploit the web
server software.

Even when talking about Microsoft Sharepoint I usually mention "sharepoint
> is a robust product but with meticulous config"... and configuration is
> where admins mostly leave security holes.
>

It's easy to wave your hand and say "with meticulous config". However,
software has defects. Bugs are a fact of life. In practice, attack surface
area actually matters. The idea is that you can't exploit something that is
not there.
Received on Tue Jul 21 2015 - 16:49:28 PST