skip to main content
10.1145/3029806.3029832acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescodaspyConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Study of Security Vulnerabilities on Docker Hub

Authors Info & Claims
Published:22 March 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Docker containers have recently become a popular approach to provision multiple applications over shared physical hosts in a more lightweight fashion than traditional virtual machines. This popularity has led to the creation of the Docker Hub registry, which distributes a large number of official and community images. In this paper, we study the state of security vulnerabilities in Docker Hub images. We create a scalable Docker image vulnerability analysis (DIVA) framework that automatically discovers, downloads, and analyzes both official and community images on Docker Hub. Using our framework, we have studied 356,218 images and made the following findings: (1) both official and community images contain more than 180 vulnerabilities on average when considering all versions; (2) many images have not been updated for hundreds of days; and (3) vulnerabilities commonly propagate from parent images to child images. These findings demonstrate a strong need for more automated and systematic methods of applying security updates to Docker images and our current Docker image analysis framework provides a good foundation for such automatic security update.

References

  1. Browse vulnerabilities by date from CVE Details. http://www.cvedetails.com/browse-by-date.php/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. CVE-2015--1781. http://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2015--1781/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. CVE-2015--4000. http://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2015--4000/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. CVE: Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures. https://cve.mitre.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Docker Bench for Security. https://github.com/docker/docker-bench-security.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. National Vulnerability Database. https://nvd.nist.gov/home.cfm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. NCSU Virtual Computing Lab. https://vcl.ncsu.edu/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. NVD Common Vulnerability Scoring System. https://nvd.nist.gov/cvss.cfm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Repositories on Docker Hub. https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/repos/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. RHSA to CVE and CPE mapping. https://www.redhat.com/security/data/metrics/rhsamapcpe.txt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Almorsy, J. Grundy, I. Müller, et al. An analysis of the cloud computing security problem. In Proceedings of APSEC 2010 Cloud Workshop, Sydney, Australia, 30th Nov, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Banyan Collector. https://github.com/banyanops/collector.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. S. Bellon, R. Koschke, G. Antoniol, J. Krinke, and E. Merlo. Comparison and evaluation of clone detection tools. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 33(9):577--591, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. A. Bettini. Vulnerability exploitation in Docker container environments. https://www.blackhat.com/docs/eu-15/materials/eu-15-Bettini-Vulnerability-Exploitation-In-Docker-Container-Environments-wp.pdf, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. S. Bugiel, S. Nürnberger, T. Pöppelmann, A.-R. Sadeghi, and T. Schneider. AmazonIA: When elasticity snaps back. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS '11, pages 389--400, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. CoreOS Clair. https://github.com/coreos/clair.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Y. Dang, D. Zhang, S. Ge, C. Chu, Y. Qiu, and T. Xie. Xiao: tuning code clones at hands of engineers in practice. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pages 369--378. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Debian Security Bug Tracker. https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. B. DeHamer. Docker Hub Top 10. https://www.ctl.io/developers/blog/post/docker-hub-top-10/, August 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Docker Security Scanning. https://docs.docker.com/docker-cloud/builds/image-scan/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. D. A. Fernandes, L. F. Soares, J. V. Gomes, M. M. Freire, and P. R. Inácio. Security issues in cloud environments: a survey. International Journal of Information Security, 13(2):113--170, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. M. Gabel, J. Yang, Y. Yu, M. Goldszmidt, and Z. Su. Scalable and systematic detection of buggy inconsistencies in source code. In ACM Sigplan Notices, volume 45, pages 175--190. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. B. Grobauer, T. Walloschek, and E. Stocker. Understanding cloud computing vulnerabilities. IEEE Security & Privacy, 9(2):50--57, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. J. Gummaraju, T. Desikan, and Y. Turner. Over 30% of official images in docker hub contain high priority security vulnerabilities. Technical report, BanyanOps, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. K. Hashizume, D. G. Rosado, E. Fernández-Medina, and E. B. Fernandez. An analysis of security issues for cloud computing. Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 4(1):1, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. K. Hashizume, N. Yoshioka, and E. B. Fernandez. Three misuse patterns for cloud computing. Security engineering for Cloud Computing: approaches and Tools, pages 36--53, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. IBM's Vulnerability Advisor. http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/47165.wss.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Is FROM scratch the root of all Docker Images? https://www.ctl.io/developers/blog/post/is-from-scratch-the-root-of-all-docker-images/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. J. Jang, A. Agrawal, and D. Brumley. Redebug: finding unpatched code clones in entire os distributions. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2012 IEEE Symposium on, pages 48--62. IEEE, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. L. Jiang, G. Misherghi, Z. Su, and S. Glondu. Deckard: Scalable and accurate tree-based detection of code clones. In Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Software Engineering, pages 96--105. IEEE Computer Society, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. T. Kamiya, S. Kusumoto, and K. Inoue. Ccfinder: a multilinguistic token-based code clone detection system for large scale source code. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(7):654--670, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Library of official images. https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/tree/master/library/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. OpenSCAP Container Compliance. https://github.com/OpenSCAP/container-compliance.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Red Hat Security Data. https://www.redhat.com/security/data/metrics/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. D. Reimer, A. Thomas, G. Ammons, T. Mummert, B. Alpern, and V. Bala. Opening black boxes: using semantic information to combat virtual machine image sprawl. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM SIGPLAN/SIGOPS international conference on Virtual execution environments, pages 111--120. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Twistlock. https://www.twistlock.com/product/vulnerabilitymanagement/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Ubuntu CVE Tracker. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-cve-tracker.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. N. Viennot, E. Garcia, and J. Nieh. A measurement study of google play. In The 2014 ACM International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, SIGMETRICS '14, pages 221--233, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. J. Wei, X. Zhang, G. Ammons, V. Bala, and P. Ning. Managing security of virtual machine images in a cloud environment. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM workshop on Cloud computing security, pages 91--96. ACM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. S. Zhang, X. Zhang, and X. Ou. After we knew it: Empirical study and modeling of cost-effectiveness of exploiting prevalent known vulnerabilities across iaas cloud. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security, ASIA CCS '14, pages 317--328, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. W. Zhou, P. Ning, X. Zhang, G. Ammons, R. Wang, and V. Bala. Always up-to-date: scalable offline patching of vm images in a compute cloud. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pages 377--386. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Study of Security Vulnerabilities on Docker Hub

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            CODASPY '17: Proceedings of the Seventh ACM on Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy
            March 2017
            382 pages
            ISBN:9781450345231
            DOI:10.1145/3029806

            Copyright © 2017 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 22 March 2017

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            CODASPY '17 Paper Acceptance Rate21of134submissions,16%Overall Acceptance Rate149of789submissions,19%

            Upcoming Conference

            CODASPY '24

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader