Containers: Benefits, Vulnerabilities and Security Measures
CIOREVIEW >> Virtualization >> NEWS

Containers: Benefits, Vulnerabilities and Security Measures

CIO Review

Approach towards implementing virtualization was traditionally based on creating VMs on top of hypervisors that allocated hardware resources. Hypervisor based virtualization imparts the ability to host multiple Operating Systems (OS) on a single server without the need to modify the OS or applications to run on the virtual environment. This approach wherein the guest OS and the host OS run their separate kernel (program that constitutes the central core of the OS) provides a strong level of isolation and security. However, when organizations do not have the need to run different types of OSs a top of a single platform, the Hypervisor approach would constrain virtualization performance.

For Instance, duplicating 100 identical OSs’ on the same hardware would mean generating 100 separate copies of kernel and other root software stack to run the guest OS which evidently translates to wastage of time and resources in terms of RAM and CPU cycles. Containerization aka OS based virtualization removes this ‘barrier’ by enabling to share the kernel with the host OS resulting in almost zero performance overhead. Unlike VMs, containers use the OS's system call interface. Miles Ward, Global Head of solutions for Google's Cloud Platform, says “containers can boot up in one-twentieth of a second. Containers thus enable packing a lot more applications into a single physical server than a VM making it all the more easier for application deployment and testing.” Google, for running search operations launches about 7,000 containers every second, which amounts to about 2 billion every week. Container environments like Kubernetes, Docker, Rocket, Core OS, Joynet and LXC(Linux Containers) to name a few, makes it simpler to create and manage containers and are getting better through every release and update.

Stay ahead of the industry with exclusive feature stories on the top companies, expert insights and the latest news delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe today.

Comparing Containers and Virtual Machines

Owing to their resource-saving approach as opposed to hypervisor/VM, containers are booming in popularity among organizations and market trends now indicate a large scale migration from VMs to containers. The interest towards container technologies have seen a sharp increase in general owing to their advantages, and popularity which in parts can be attributed to its value as well as hype. It is estimated that two out of every three firms that try containers proceed to adopt it, with Docker being the most popular choice of container environment.

The relatively new container technologies are yet to gain a level of maturity as that of VMs/Hypervisors. Just as any new entrant in the tech scene they too have faced limitations in the availability of tools needed to monitor and manage them which over the years have been rectified vastly. Containers could never render the former approach obsolete (at least as of now). Choosing between containers and VMs thus depends on the type of process. Take testing for instance, Hypervisors approach may be suited for checking cross platform compatibility where as a container approach is more suitable for testing various versions of the application on the same platform.

Applications offering micro services tend to be more suitable to run on containers as opposed to hefty monolithic applications. However, Google’s multi-container management system which now forms the open source Kubernetes Project helps build a cluster to run containers, providing networking and a container-naming system that enables managing many containers at once which allows running big applications in multiple containers across many computers without the need to know all the ins and outs of container cluster management. It is up to the enterprise to identify a suitable virtualization approach by experimenting on both.

Security Concerns

Containers function in the form of layers created on top of base images which may be created by anyone and shared across repositories. Layering helps to easily rollback changes by simply switching to the old layers with almost no overhead. However, the container architecture makes it possible for malicious code to escape from a container and gain access to host OS or other containers in the system. Container images may be created by anyone and shared across official and unofficial repositories. Poisoned images or those tampered by attackers are a security concern for containers. If a container image has full user privileges, intruders can break through from the containerized environment to the underlying platform and retain privileges. According to BanyanOps, a container technology company, more than 30 percent of containers distributed in the official repositories have high priority security vulnerabilities and jumps to about 40 percent outside official repositories.

Another concern that may root from the framework of container technology is Denial of Service (DoS) wherein if one container (manipulated by attacker or otherwise) could monopolize access to certain resources–including memory or user IDs, it can starve out other containers on the host resulting in legitimate users being unable to access part or all of the system.

Containing Container Vulnerabilities

From a security perspective, it is strongly recommended not to set enhanced privilege for virtualization containers. If at all containers require privileges to be raised, it has to be ensured that they are reverted. For instance, majority of containers do not need root privileges as services that require them should already be running outside of the container as part of the underlying platform. Running containers with reduced privilege is in turn a protective measure as it causes the container to deny any mount requests, deny file creation or attribute change activities, prevent module loading. Enabling abstraction using specialized namespaces is another method of container isolation. They should also be provided with their own network stack avoiding any privileged access across different containers to physical ports. APIs being integral parts of containerized environments calls for API management and monitoring tools; small errors in API calls could as well pave way for intrusion.

Running containers on top of a hypervisor/VM is an option worth considering as it would establish a secure boundary for containers whilst avoiding conflicts and enhancing redistribution. But as intriguing as it may sound, it is regarded a rather complex set up to maintain and sure comes with a minor performance penalty which include a setback to container’s higher hardware density and auto scaling features.

Addressing security and policy compliance, Docker has recently added the capability to sign container images using a hardware device, to scan container images for vulnerabilities, and to set up separate user namespaces to isolate environments which apparently circumvents through previously mentioned security challenges that container technology pose.

A Note on Container Environments

Although it is one among similar offerings, Docker has become synonymous with container technology. IBM has partnered with Docker for building and running applications on the IBM Cloud. On June 8th 2016 Microsoft announced that Docker now could be used natively on Windows 10 with Hyper-V Containers, to build, ship and run containers utilizing the Windows Server 2016 Technical Preview 5 Nano Server container OS image. Google has also offered adding in support for Docker containers on its Google Cloud Platform.

On the down side of Docker, a movement to boycott Docker is underway on grounds that it masks plenty of loop holes which apparently cause unsuspecting clients to end up in situations like vendor lock-in and slewed network. The movement lays down points to argue that much of the Docker platform is hyped and the reality is barren. Details about an ongoing case against Docker are also laid out. In such a state of uncertainty, especially among enterprises looking to ‘try out’ the technology, we encourage thorough research on other offerings. Choosing between containers and VMs is not an either-or proposition but an ‘if-this-then-that’ strategy; ironical to the if-else/do-while statements in programming languages.

More in News

A software engineering and AI analytics purchase can fail long before model accuracy becomes a concern. The bigger challenge is often the handoff between existing infrastructure and new analytics, especially when camera networks and edge devices were never designed to share context. Replacing everything may simplify architecture on paper, but it can strain capital requirements and stretch deployment timelines. Buyers need to know whether a platform can work across existing technology boundaries without turning modernization into a wholesale infrastructure project.  Integration depth is therefore more revealing than the number of AI features on a product sheet. A useful platform should accept heterogeneous inputs and expose their data through a common control layer without forcing every piece of existing hardware to conform to one technical standard. It should also preserve the usefulness of legacy assets while making their information accessible to newer analytics. That matters in distributed environments where hardware replacement may be slow or economically unjustified. The real question is whether modernization can proceed around installed infrastructure rather than requiring a clean slate.  Real-time analytics creates an attention problem of its own. Video feeds and sensor events can overwhelm staff when every detection is treated as equally important. Buyers should examine how a platform separates routine activity from events that merit human review, and then look at how quickly those events reach the people responsible for validation. The difference between raw monitoring and useful analytics lies in this filtering step. A system that produces more alerts without improving prioritization merely transfers workload from observation to triage.  Architecture becomes more consequential as data volumes rise. Sending every high-definition stream to a centralized cloud environment can create avoidable bandwidth costs and response delays. Edge processing can reduce that burden when analytics are performed close to the source and only selected information moves upstream. Yet edge deployment introduces management demands. Devices and application services still need a coherent way to exchange information and support later investigation. Buyers should also examine how much infrastructure complexity is added when analytics move closer to the source.  “ CFBD ’s hybrid architecture connects legacy environments to newer computing infrastructure through hyperconvergence and virtualization.” Searchability deserves equal importance. Once video or sensor data has been transformed into structured metadata, teams should be able to move from live detection to later investigation without manually reviewing hours of footage. Useful systems retain descriptive attributes and behavioral context in forms that can be queried quickly. The buying question is whether that context survives across live monitoring and retrospective analysis rather than being trapped in separate workflows. Fast retrieval matters because delayed investigation can erase much of the advantage gained from real-time detection.  CFBD merits consideration for buyers facing this mix of integration pressure and analytics workload. Its AZOR Ecosystem, a real-time data orchestration platform, centralizes video and sensor information. AZOR Panel, a centralized monitoring interface, receives AI-filtered events for human validation. AZOR Analytics, a video analytics component, supports real-time and forensic analysis, while edge gateways can process video near the source and pass lighter event data upstream. Its hybrid architecture connects legacy environments to newer computing infrastructure through hyperconvergence and virtualization. The fit is strongest where replacement costs and operator overload are material constraints. For organizations that need AI analytics without discarding usable infrastructure, CFBD is a practical choice.  ...Read more
Customer outreach is moving faster than many compliance programs were designed to govern. A campaign assembled in hours can pass through several applications before a call, text, email or prerecorded message reaches a customer, while autonomous agents compress that cycle further. The exposure is no longer limited to whether a record appeared on a suppression list. Consent status, channel permissions, time-of-day rules and state or federal restrictions can change the answer at the moment of contact. A platform that checks too late leaves legal teams reconstructing decisions after the communication has already occurred. Static controls also create a quieter commercial problem. Large enterprises often carry separate customer records across business units, and a broad opt-out can be applied far beyond the product or channel the customer intended. Conservative suppression may reduce legal exposure, yet it can also remove legitimate audiences from campaigns and weaken the return on CRM or marketing technology investments. Effective governance needs enough context to distinguish a prohibited contact from an allowable one without forcing every business unit to maintain its own interpretation of the rules. The harder test is whether those distinctions survive as consent records move between systems and outreach programs change. “Gryphon’s deterministic rules-based decisioning evaluates contact permissions in real time, while automated evidence capture gives legal and compliance teams a defensible record of why each decision was made.” Speed matters at the decision point, not merely during campaign preparation. List scrubbing and periodic audits remain useful for certain tasks, but neither is designed to govern communications that originate across contact centers, individual employees, enterprise applications and autonomous agents. Decisioning should sit inside the existing workflow and evaluate the applicable permissions before outreach proceeds. The answer also needs to return quickly enough that compliance does not become a queue. Enterprise scale is equally important. A control layer that works only for one channel or one application recreates the same fragmentation it was purchased to remove. Policy changes also need to propagate without campaign teams waiting for separate rule updates in each downstream application, especially when restrictions take effect quickly. Defensibility separates governance from simple blocking. Executives should expect a clear record of the rule applied, the evidence used, the policy version and the reason a communication was allowed or stopped. Those records need to remain searchable as regulations and internal policies change. Deterministic decisioning has particular value where an organization must later explain exactly why a contact was permitted. The same discipline helps compliance teams identify oversuppression rather than treating every uncertain record as unusable. Buyers should also examine how readily the platform connects to existing CRM, contact-center, marketing automation and governance systems, since a long replacement project can undermine the speed advantage that real-time controls are meant to provide. Gryphon  is the premier choice for enterprises that need contact governance embedded directly into customer engagement rather than added as a later review. Its platform applies real-time controls across voice, SMS, email and interactions generated by AI agents while integrating with existing enterprise applications. Gryphon’s deterministic rules-based decisioning evaluates contact permissions in real time, while automated evidence capture gives legal and compliance teams a defensible record of why each decision was made. Compliance Hub extends that visibility into audit research and reporting. The platform also identifies contacts suppressed too broadly, helping organizations preserve legitimate reach without relaxing policy enforcement. For buyers balancing regulatory exposure against legitimate customer contact, point-of-contact enforcement paired with documented decision logic makes Gryphon a practical recommendation. ...Read more
Disconnected data work rarely begins at the pipeline itself. The delay often appears earlier, when a proposed data product moves from a business idea into requirements, architecture decisions, access controls and a development environment. Each handoff can introduce another tool or approval path, while product context becomes harder to preserve. By the time engineering begins, teams may already be reconciling mismatched project names, duplicated documentation, fragmented ownership and inconsistent setup across systems. Portfolio-level visibility also matters before engineering starts. A platform that preserves business cases alongside product definitions can help leadership compare proposed work, assign teams and select technology stacks without separating prioritization from the delivery path that eventually executes those decisions. That fragmentation becomes expensive when orchestration is purchased as another isolated layer. Data teams commonly work across cloud infrastructure, code repositories, ticketing systems and specialist data platforms, while product managers and architects need continuity across the same work. Replacing that estate is rarely the practical objective. A stronger platform coordinates existing environments while preserving product identity and approved technology choices throughout delivery. Integration depth matters less as a feature count than as a way to remove repeated setup and cross-tool reconciliation. “Calibo can establish access to selected technology stacks and generate CI/CD pathways for controlled movement between development and production environments.” Self-service also needs boundaries. Provisioning development environments, granting access, creating repositories and triggering infrastructure changes can remove substantial waiting time, but only when those actions follow established controls. The useful distinction is whether routine requests can execute from approved templates and policies rather than pass through manual service tickets. That changes the role of platform and architecture teams. Instead of completing repetitive setup on demand, they can establish guardrails that engineering teams use independently. Traceability becomes harder once a project leaves experimentation and enters controlled delivery. Changes to requirements can alter pipeline work, while release movement creates dependencies across development, test, staging and production. Executives need a clear line from the original business case to the technical work that follows, particularly when multiple data products compete for budget or shared engineering capacity. Visibility into status, resource use, dependencies and release progress helps management identify where work is waiting without rebuilding the picture from separate tools. It can also expose queueing between teams before delayed approvals become late-stage release problems. Release control should be treated as part of orchestration rather than an adjacent DevOps concern. Creating a pipeline is only part of the purchase decision. The harder question is whether code and data products can move through governed environments without custom coordination each time. Automated CI/CD setup, reusable templates, policy-based promotion and dependency visibility can make that movement repeatable. This becomes more important for AI-related data work, where experiments can appear quickly but production use depends on controlled access, governed data movement, documented lineage and consistent release practices. Calibo merits recommendation for enterprises that want data orchestration tied directly to the broader delivery lifecycle. Its Data Fabric Studio supports reusable data pipelines. The wider platform carries product context into the development toolchain while automating environment setup. Calibo can establish access to selected technology stacks and generate CI/CD pathways for controlled movement between development and production environments. Its Release Orchestration capability extends that model into deployment governance and dependency management. This gives data teams a self-service framework that reduces manual handoffs while keeping technical work connected to the product context and enterprise controls that initiated it. ...Read more
As software development becomes more reliant on AI, companies have started to focus more on the process of coding, changing, and attributing. Code attribution systems for AI are becoming common for helping engineering professionals know the source of code, differentiate human contributions from that done by AI, and remain visible in the development environment. Their importance goes beyond that of mere tracking since attribution can affect intellectual property management, security assessments, compliance procedures, and engineering performance. However, the implementation of these platforms poses some problems that organizations need to solve before they can effectively use attribution. How Can Organizations Maintain Accurate Code Attribution? An important issue here is the question of establishing accurate attribution in a complicated process of software development. Nowadays, software development includes many repositories, development environments, libraries, automated systems, and cooperation models. The suggestions generated by the artificial intelligence can be accepted, modified, mixed with the existing code, or completely rewritten by the developer. As a result, it becomes difficult to distinguish what part was done with the help of AI and what was developed independently by humans. Data quality also poses a challenge. Attributing authorship requires the availability of development history, history of code changes, prompts, suggestions, and modification patterns. Poor data quality can lead to erroneous findings, especially where organizations employ different methods for software development or use a different set of tools for development. It is imperative for businesses to come up with data standards for the consistency of findings. Issues related to privacy and intellectual property rights make the scenario even more complicated. The source code may include business logic, proprietary processes, and customer data. Companies that choose to implement the attribution platforms need to pay special attention to the way the development data will be gathered, analyzed, stored, and made available. What Makes AI Attribution Difficult Across Enterprise Development? The other challenge is that of incorporating the attribution process into the current engineering process. Companies typically have heterogeneous technology stacks and development processes. This implies that any attribution solution has to be compatible with the source code repositories, issue tracking platforms, code reviews, security mechanisms and so forth. If not, fragmentation and extra manual processes arise. Interpretation is just as crucial. Metrics related to attribution should not be automatically assumed to reflect developer productivity or the quality of code written. While AI can alter how engineers spend their time, more generated code does not imply a better result. Business context regarding maintainability, reliability, reviews, security, and business needs should also be factored in, along with attribution. Attributing AI code is going to be contingent upon transparency, interoperability, and good governance. Enterprises are going to require established processes for attributing contributions made by AI and also explaining how the information is to be utilized. Software systems capable of creating traceable evidence, easy integration, and clear reporting can enable enterprises to create more trust when it comes to AI-enabled development efforts. Taking a good approach towards these considerations will enable enterprises to get visibility regarding the use of AI in coding without having to risk their intellectual property rights and engineering accountability. ...Read more