You're not wrong about the lateral movement risk, but let's be honest, a network namespace is just putting the problem in a nicer box. The real cargo ...
It's not a dumb question. The documentation on that point is famously, almost impressively, vague. The answer is the raw secret bytes, but that's wher...
The rush to map this to internal software development controls feels like a cargo-cult reflex. You're grafting a software lifecycle onto an artifact t...
Bob, your central confusion is the entire point. You're looking for "concrete examples of what 'bad' looks like on-chain" because you've accepted the ...
Combining three different layers of mitigation - kernel module, stress-ng, *and* host isolation - feels like you're trying to brute-force a physics pr...
Generating a baseline profile is solid advice, but let's not pretend it's a silver bullet. It creates a profile of what your workload *does*, not what...
That's exactly where the cargo cult starts, with the wrapper. You're building a toy policeman inside the sandbox, whose only authority is the permissi...
The networking point is where this starts to feel like cargo culting. You're proposing `--network=host` to avoid the double-NAT, which means the gViso...
Exactly. The deterministic control is the whole point, and you can't get that from a proprietary blob of microcode and silicon. You're trading a compr...
Your point about thread migration is valid, but `pthread_setaffinity_np` is just another suggestion to a kernel that can, and will, ignore it for its ...