caddy-docker

guage I'm not familiar with and I can't track down where the variable gets set, at least not quickly. I'd probably have to spend an hour learning how those templates work to figure it out. To make a quicker, educated guess, it most likely matches the builder version. The docs said the version can be set to any git ref, so I can explicitly set it to v2.5.1 on the command line [3] to be certain. Now, what version of `caddy-dns/cloudflare` am I getting? The xcaddy custom builds section of the docs [4] says the version can optionally be specified, but it's not specified in the above example. There aren't any tags in the repo, so it's probably building off `master`. The doc says it functions similar to `go get`, but doesn't explain what the differences are and the default behavior isn't explained either. The docs for `go get` [6] say it can use a revision, so maybe a specific commit can be used for that, but I'd need to test it since I'm not super familiar with Golang. What other risks come along with building and maintaining my own custom image? I could end up with a subtly broken build that only occurs in my environment. Portability doesn't guarantee compatibility [7] and building custom images increases the risk of compatibility issues beyond what I get with official images (building and running vs just running). That blog post is a really cool read on it's own BTW. I need to consider the potential for breakage even if it's miniscule because my Docker infrastructure is self hosted and will be sitting behind my custom built Caddy image. If my custom image breaks, I need a guaranteed way of having access to a previous, known good version. This is as simple as publishing the images externally, but adds an extra step since I'll need an account at a registry and need to integrate pushes to that registry into my build. If I build a custom image, do I let other people I help with the odd tech thing use it or is all the effort for me only? I don't want to become the maintainer of a Docker image others rely on, so I can't even re-use any related config if I help others in the future since they won't have access to the needed image. To be fair, I also see things I don't like in the NGINX Proxy Manager Dockerfile [7]. The two that immediately jump out at me are things I consider common mistakes. Both require unlucky timing to fail, but can technically cause failure IMO. The first is using `apt-get update` which will exit 0 on failure and has the potential to leave `apt-get install` running against obsolete versions. The second is using `apt-get update` in multiple parts of a multistage build. If I were doing it I'd run `apt-get update` in a base image and avoid it in the builder + runtime images to guarantee the versions stay the same between the build container and the runtime container. It took me about 1h to work through that and write this comment, so it's not just a matter of building a Docker image and plugging in the config. There's a lot of nuance that goes into maintaining a Docker image (I'm sure you know that already) and not having an image with the DNS plugin(s) baked in is a show stopper for anyone like me that can't justify maintaining their own. Also, a 4 line Docker file looks nice in terms of being simple, but explicitly declaring or even adding comments describing some of the things I pointed out above can save people a lot of time. Even comments with links to the relevant portions of the docs would be super useful. My reason for wanting the Cloudflare DNS plugin is that I have some things I want to run 100% locally without ever exposing them to the internet. The desire for wildcard certificates is to keep things from being discoverable via CTLogs. I hope that's useful feedback. I realize someone bemoaning the difficulty of running your stuff at home lab / small business scale isn't exactly the target audience in terms of picking up customers that pay the bills. Thanks again for the reply / example. 1. https://github.com/caddyserver/xcaddy#command-usage 2. https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy-docker/blob/master/Dock... 3. https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/tree/v2.5.1 4. https://github.com/caddyserver/xcaddy#custom-builds 5. https://github.com/caddy-dns/cloudflare/tags 6. https://go.dev/ref/mod#go-get 7. https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/containers-understanding-diff... 8. https://github.com/NginxProxyManager/docker-nginx-full/blob/...

o :80/:443 in the container, so the setpcap magic isn't necessary at all. > It's also worth noting that caddy is an official image, and as such needs to be similarly-shaped to other official images of the same type. At a quick glance, none of nginx, traefik, httpd, or haproxy support running as non-root out of the box either. > Finally, it's worth considering why you want to run as non-root. What attack vectors are you trying to avoid? Container escape vulnerabilities are pretty much the only real risk, but anyone running a modern Docker version is immune to many of them. It's also worth considering user namespace remapping as a mitigation. In my experience the main reason for running as non-root is to pass compliance checks - not a bad reason, but it's also worth recognizing that non-compliance does not automatically equal decreased security (and vice-versa). If larger projects, like Nginx, Traefik, Httpd and HAProxy were all creating containers like that, it makes you think about the reasoning behind it. Is it easier to just run containers as root and not worry about the permissions inside of the container? If so, wouldn't it really make more sense for the container runtime to have some sort of mechanisms in place to allow people to do what's easy within the containers while also making sure that it has no harmful impact outside of them? Because to me it seems like people will continuously take the path of least resistance and from where i stand, it should be up to the creators of the container technologies to make sure that this path is safe by default.