|
|
|
|
|
by gitgudnubs
2286 days ago
|
|
If you choose an arbitrary limit orders of magnitude above normal use, then you probably don't have any protection. Most systems are scaled to reasonable use, so an additional 1000x load in a dimension could bowl over the system. Even defining "normal use" is intractable. For instance, most docker layers are a few MB, but some people are deploying 3P software packaged as a container with 10 GB in a single layer. You can't fix their container. They can't fix their container. Your definition of reasonable changes, and you bump your maximum to 1 TB. Then someone is trying to deploy docker containers that run VMs, which have 1.5 TB images. It's to interface with legacy systems that are infeasibly difficult to improve. But the vhd is a single sile, so now you have a single layer maximum size of 1.5 TB. But since the 10 GB body size is a possible attack vector in and of itself, what's the security benefit of having any maximum size limit at this point? It's the wrong approach. Instead, your system should gracefully handle objects of arbitrary size. Security should be enforced by cryptographically enforced access controls and quotas. |
|