Containers changed the attack surface. But security models didn’t
The shift from virtual machines to containers and Kubernetes fundamentally changed how software is built, shipped, and operated. Infrastructure became ephemeral. Applications became distributed. Dependencies exploded.
Yet, much of the security tooling in use today still assumes a world of long‑lived servers, static binaries, and clearly defined perimeters.
This mismatch has real consequences — especially as supply‑chain attacks and cloud‑native breaches continue to rise.
Containers reshaped the attack surface
In traditional environments, attackers needed persistence. Gaining a foothold often meant deploying malware, escalating privileges, and maintaining access over time.
In containerized environments, persistence is optional.
Modern attackers:
Exploit vulnerable dependencies or poisoned images
Abuse default permissions and overly broad runtime access
Live off the land by using existing binaries and system calls
Move laterally through APIs and cloud credentials
Why traditional security tools struggle
Most security programs rely heavily on two pillars:
Pre‑deployment scanning
Post‑compromise detection
Both have limitations in cloud‑native environments.
Vulnerability scanners
Scanners analyze images, SBOMs, and packages to identify known CVEs. While valuable, they provide no context on whether a vulnerability is actually reachable or exploitable at runtime.
This leads to:
Long remediation backlogs
Misplaced prioritization
Engineering teams fixing issues that pose little real risk
Detection‑first runtime tools
Detection tools monitor behavior and raise alerts when something looks suspicious. But in practice:
Alerts arrive after exploitation begins
Human response times are measured in minutes or hours
Attackers only need seconds
Detection without enforcement turns security into an investigative exercise rather than a control.
Supply‑chain attacks expose the gap
Supply‑chain attacks highlight this disconnect perfectly. When a compromised dependency is introduced:
The binary may be “known and trusted”
The vulnerability may be unknown or zero‑day
Detection triggers only after malicious behavior starts
At that point, the question isn’t if the attacker got in, it’s how far they got.
Runtime behavior is the real control point
Containers reduce isolation to process‑level boundaries.
That makes runtime behavior — system calls, file access, network connections — the most reliable signal of intent.
Security models that enforce *intended behavior* at runtime can:
Block exploitation paths regardless of CVE awareness
Contain supply‑chain attacks automatically
Reduce noise by preventing incidents instead of reporting them
This shifts security from reactive to preventive.
What a modern security model looks like
A container‑native security model assumes:
Compromise is inevitable
Not all vulnerabilities are equal
Runtime enforcement matters more than static assumptions
Instead of asking, “Is this container vulnerable?”. The better question becomes
“Should this container ever be allowed to do this?”.
Closing the gap
Containers changed the attack surface.
Security models must evolve accordingly.
Preventive runtime controls won’t replace scanning or detection — but they complete the picture.
For security leaders, this means:
Fewer high‑severity incidents
Clearer risk reduction
Security that scales with modern delivery
Cloud‑native systems deserve cloud‑native security, enforced where it matters most: at runtime.