ADR-006: Nostr relays for decentralized marketplace discovery ADR-007: DID-based bilateral federation trust ADR-008: Dual key strategy (Ed25519 + secp256k1) ADR-009: Manifest-level container security enforcement Total: 9 ADRs covering all significant architectural decisions. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2.9 KiB
2.9 KiB
ADR-009: Manifest-Level Container Security Enforcement
Status
Accepted
Context
Archipelago runs third-party applications as containers. Without enforcement, containers could:
- Run as root and escalate privileges
- Access the host filesystem
- Modify their own binaries (persistence of malicious code)
- Acquire unnecessary Linux capabilities
- Use unverified or tampered container images
Other node OS projects (Umbrel, Start9) vary in their security enforcement. Archipelago targets a higher security bar suitable for handling Bitcoin private keys and personal data.
Decision
Enforce security constraints at the manifest level, applied automatically during container creation. Every container MUST comply with these non-negotiable defaults:
Mandatory Security Defaults
| Constraint | Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
readonly_root |
true |
Prevents runtime filesystem modification (anti-persistence) |
no_new_privileges |
true |
Prevents privilege escalation via setuid/setgid |
user |
UID > 1000 | Never run as root |
capabilities |
Drop ALL, add only required | Principle of least privilege |
image_tag |
Pinned version | No latest tags — reproducible deploys |
seccomp_profile |
Default | Blocks dangerous syscalls |
Manifest Enforcement
The core/container/ module validates manifests before container creation:
- Parse the YAML manifest
- Validate all required security fields are present
- Reject manifests that violate mandatory defaults (e.g.,
readonly_root: falsewithout explicit override) - Apply security context during
podman create
Optional Overrides
Some apps legitimately need elevated privileges:
readonly_root: false— Only for apps that must write to their root filesystem (documented reason required)- Additional capabilities (e.g.,
NET_ADMINfor VPN apps) — must be explicitly listed and justified
Consequences
Positive
- Defense in depth — even if a container image is compromised, damage is limited
- Consistent security posture across all apps
- Transparent — users can inspect any app's security manifest
- Aligns with industry best practices (CIS Benchmarks, NIST)
Negative
- Some apps may not work without modifications (e.g., apps expecting root)
- Read-only root requires explicit volume mounts for writable directories
- Developers must understand and comply with the security model
- Slightly more complex manifest format than competitors
Mitigations
- Clear documentation in
docs/app-manifest-spec.md - Example manifests for common app patterns
- Build-time validation catches issues before deployment
- Override mechanism for legitimate exceptions (with audit trail)
References
docs/app-manifest-spec.md— Full manifest specificationcore/container/src/— Container security implementationcore/security/src/— AppArmor profiles and secrets management