Add disambiguation, tweak wording

docs/misc/non-root.md

@@ -7,13 +7,13 @@
 
 If you run one of our typical images in a standard Docker setup, the container itself will run as `root`. After init we then drop to an unprivileged user, `abc` to run the actual application service(s). We do this because at the time we designed our architecture the alternative - setting a fixed unprivileged user at build time - would have prevented us from offering the range of options that wanted to. While it is now possible to use the `--user` parameter to run any container as an arbitrary user, it hasn't been something we've been able to support before now.
 
-The other approach is to run [Docker itself rootless](https://docs.docker.com/engine/security/rootless/). This creates a separate user and network namespace for your containers that separates them from the host and means that even containers nominally running as `root` don't have root permissions on your host.
+The other approach is to run [Docker itself rootless](https://docs.docker.com/engine/security/rootless/). This creates a separate user and network namespace for your containers that separates them from the host and means that even containers nominally running as `root` don't have root permissions on your host. Running a container as a non-root user and running it rootless are **not** the same, but are commonly conflated.
 
 ## Why?
 
-Some people take the position that a container running as root *at any point* is an unacceptable security risk. Those people typically misunderstand the attack surface of containers and where the risks actually lie. Having said that, there *are* some risks with having containers running as root; generally, a better solution to running every container as an unprivileged user is to run Docker itself rootless, but that's not always desirable. In these situations, being able to run a single container as a unprivileged user has its benefits.
+Some people take the position that a container running as root *at any point in any configuration* is an unacceptable security risk. Those people typically misunderstand the attack surface of containers and where the risks actually lie. Having said that, there *are* some risks with having containers running as root, depending on the environment; generally, a better solution to running every container as an unprivileged user is to run Docker itself rootless, but that's not always desirable. In these situations, being able to run a single container as a unprivileged user has its benefits.
 
-To give you some sense of a potential risk, let's take our SABnzbd image and let's imagine you've exposed it to the internet and for some reason allowed unauthenticated access. Now let's assume a user were to discover a Remote Code Execution vulnerability in SABnzbd, and were able to exploit it to get a shell in the container (not a simple task, but let's be generous). At this point you have a shell running as the unprivileged `abc` account, which heavily limits what you can do. There's no sudo/doas in the container so you'd likely need to chain a Privilege Escalation vulnerability (within the limited set of packages installed) to get root. Even at that point, with root access inside the container, you would then need a further Container Escape vulnerability in order to do anything meaningful to the host beyond simply deleting or modifying data in a mounted path (which you could do as a non-root user anyway). That said, some of our containers do require additional Capabilities to run, and these *could* be exploited by a user with root to affect the host in various ways.
+To give you some sense of the scope of potential risk, let's take our SABnzbd image, imagine you've exposed it to the internet, and for some reason allowed unauthenticated access. Now let's assume a user were to discover a Remote Code Execution vulnerability in SABnzbd, and were able to exploit it to get a shell in the container (not a simple task, but let's be generous). At this point they have a shell running as the unprivileged `abc` account, which heavily limits what they can do. There's no sudo/doas in the container so they'd likely need to chain a Privilege Escalation vulnerability (within the limited set of packages installed) to get root. Even at that point, with root access inside the container, they would then need a further Container Escape vulnerability in order to do anything meaningful to the host beyond simply deleting or modifying data in a mounted path (which they could do as a non-root user anyway). That said, some of our containers do require additional Capabilities to run, and these *could* be exploited by a user with root to affect the host in various ways.
 
 ## How?