The variable declared an intent and changed nothing: it fed the report and
never the binding, so it could say public while the file published on the
loopback, or the reverse. A declaration that cannot be wrong is better than one
that has to be kept in step.
The scope is now which binding the file asks for, read from the compose files
as written: ${MYOS_BIND_PUBLIC} is public, a hand-written address is pinned,
and a bare '- 80' or '9000:9000' is unbound, meaning docker opens it on every
address and nobody chose that. --strict fails on those.
Reading the resolved configuration instead would lose the distinction: every
form ends up as a plain address, and an unbound port looks exactly like a
deliberate public one.
What is left to configure per host is the address of each scope, which is the
part that belongs to the host rather than to the stack.
The catalogue publishes 51 compose files with the bare form 'ports: [80]',
which binds a random host port on 0.0.0.0: every service answers the internet.
ufw-docker existed to take that back afterwards, as root, on linux only,
because docker writes its own firewall rules and ufw never sees those ports.
Publishing where you mean to solves it at the source. Verified against the
daemon: '- 80' gives 0.0.0.0:32768, '127.0.0.1::80' gives 127.0.0.1:32769.
Same on macOS and on linux, no privilege, and visible in docker ps.
A stack binds with ${MYOS_BIND_PRIVATE|PUBLIC|MESH} and declares what it
means with <PREFIX>_SERVICE[_<port>]_EXPOSE. myos expose reads the resolved
compose configuration and reports what would be opened; --strict fails when a
port faces the world without declaring it, which is what an agent runs against
a server it did not set up.
Yann Autissier