Container Runtime Security: AI-Optimized Technical Reference

Critical Failure Scenarios

Container Escape Consequences

• NVIDIA CVE-2025-23266: Complete tenant isolation failure in GPU containers
• Impact: Competitor model data leaked into training datasets
• Timeline: 12 hours cleanup time for complete cluster compromise
• Cost: $40,000 AWS bill from cryptocurrency mining spread

Production Breaking Points

• Memory limits fail on kernel 4.15+ with exit code 137 (SIGKILL from OOM killer)
• RHEL 7.6 memory accounting breaks on specific kernel configurations
• UI breaks at 1,000 spans making distributed transaction debugging impossible
• Service mesh sidecars confuse security tools generating false positives

Tool Performance Reality vs Marketing Claims

Tool	Vendor Claim	Actual Performance	Critical Failures
SentinelOne	<5% overhead	15-25% CPU impact	$500+/node/month hidden costs
Sysdig	5-10% overhead	UI slower than government bureaucracy	Separate license for dashboards
Aqua	Enterprise-ready	Requires 400-page manual comprehension	6-month integration consulting
Prisma	400+ compliance checks	100,000 alerts on day one	Dedicated Palo Alto engineer required
Falco	Minimal resources	20-30% CPU until months of tuning	Full-time engineer for false positive management

Actual Implementation Costs

Tool	Vendor Quote	Real Total Cost	Hidden Requirements
SentinelOne	$8-15/node/month	$200-500/node/month	Dedicated engineer + custom dashboards
Sysdig	$12-20/container	$300-800/month base	SIEM integration license
Aqua	$10-18/container	$500-1200/month minimum	6-month consulting + training
Prisma	$15-25/workload	$1000+/month enterprise	Specialized staff + complex licensing
Falco	Free open source	$150-300k/year engineer	6-month learning curve + maintenance

Runtime Security Configuration Requirements

Working Production Settings

• eBPF monitoring: Budget 512MB memory overhead per node
• Syscall monitoring: 10-20% additional CPU allocation required
• Detection-only mode first: Enforcement breaks CI/CD pipelines immediately
• Behavioral monitoring + automated response: Only combination that stopped major incidents

Critical Failure Modes

• Docker memory limits are suggestions on kernel 4.15+
• Kubernetes network policies: Implemented differently by every CNI
  • Calico: Works correctly
  • Flannel: Ignores half the policy specification
  • Weave: Crashes under load
• Default service accounts: Often have cluster-admin permissions from forgotten Helm charts

Resource Requirements and Timelines

Real Implementation Timelines

• SentinelOne "1-2 weeks": Actually 6-8 weeks including false positive tuning
• Falco implementation: 3-6 months for proper functionality
• SIEM integration: Add 4-8 weeks for custom dashboards and alert routing
• Team training: 3-6 months reduced productivity during learning curve

Performance Impact Specifications

• CPU-intensive workloads: 15-25% performance degradation
• Comprehensive syscall monitoring: 20-30% CPU impact on 500+ containers
• Memory overhead: 512MB per node for security agents
• False positive rates: 10,000-50,000 alerts per day with default configurations

Detection Capabilities vs Attack Vectors

What Runtime Security Catches

• Container escapes: Process-level monitoring detects privilege escalation
• Cryptomining: Behavioral analysis identifies unexpected network connections
• Registry poisoning: Runtime behavioral analysis catches encrypted payloads
• API server exploits: Anomalous syscalls from compromised containers

What Image Scanning Misses

• Clean images downloading malware: 90% of actual incidents
• Runtime toolkit vulnerabilities: CVE-2025-23266 type exploits
• C2 server connections: Post-deployment malicious behavior
• Memory space access: GPU container tenant isolation failures

Critical Warnings and Breaking Points

Service Mesh Integration Failures

• Istio sidecars: Confuse most security tools with false positives
• Mesh traffic patterns: Security tools don't understand service-to-service communication
• Integration nightmare: Half of runtime security tools break entirely
• Tuning requirement: Months needed to understand mesh networking

Compliance and Audit Reality

• SOC 2 auditors: Don't understand ephemeral container security
• Traditional antivirus: Doesn't work on containers existing for minutes
• Network policies: Don't prevent container escapes
• Falco compliance reporting: Acceptable checkbox for most auditors

Air-Gapped Environment Limitations

• Threat intelligence updates: Most tools require internet connectivity
• Stale signatures: Offline deployment misses zero-day threats
• Reduced detection capability: Without live threat feeds
• Hybrid architecture: Control plane air-gapped, periodic secure updates

Decision Criteria Framework

Choose SentinelOne If

• Budget allows $200-500/node/month
• Need autonomous response capabilities
• Can accept 15-25% performance impact
• Have dedicated engineer for tuning

Choose Falco If

• Have Linux kernel expertise in-house
• Can dedicate 6 months to implementation
• Accept 20-30% CPU impact during tuning
• Need open-source solution

Avoid Runtime Security If

• Running single-tenant environments only
• Can't afford 15-25% performance degradation
• Don't have dedicated security engineers
• Require immediate deployment without tuning period

Threat Response Timelines

Manual Detection Response

• Initial detection: 2-6 hours to identify anomaly
• Source identification: 4+ hours investigation
• Containment: Variable cleanup time
• Total incident response: 6-18 hours breach to containment

Automated Response Effectiveness

• SentinelOne autonomous response: Minutes to container termination
• False positive risk: Legitimate workloads killed during tuning
• Falco + manual response: 2-4 hours with cryptic alert investigation
• Detection-only mode: Safer but requires manual intervention

Container Security Operational Reality

Why Image Scanning is Insufficient

• Runtime behavior: Malicious activity occurs post-deployment
• Zero-day exploits: Runtime toolkit vulnerabilities bypass image scans
• Encrypted payloads: Malicious code hidden from static analysis
• Process monitoring necessity: Only runtime tools catch container escapes

Essential Security Requirements

• Behavioral monitoring: Critical for unknown threat detection
• Process-level visibility: Required for escape detection
• Dedicated security engineers: Tools don't self-operate
• Performance budget: 10-30% overhead for comprehensive monitoring

Implementation Success Factors

• Start detection-only: Enforcement breaks production immediately
• Tune for months: Default configurations generate unusable alert volumes
• Hire expertise: Linux internals and eBPF knowledge required
• Budget hidden costs: Licensing, consulting, and specialized staff