Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 140 references

Docker under Siege: Securing Containers in the Modern Era

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that Docker security is a lifecycle problem answered by layered controls across image, runtime, network, configuration, supply chain, and monitoring domains.

desk verdict A competent but unoriginal Docker security checklist whose CVE misattributions make it unreliable as a reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02043 v1 pith:4M3474IK submitted 2025-05-31 cs.CR

Gogulakrishnan Thiyagarajan , Prabhudarshi Nayak This is my paper
classification cs.CR
keywords Dockersecuritycontainersoftwaredevelopmentlifecycleruntimenetworkconfigurationmanagementsupplychainmonitoringandlogging
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Docker containerization brings efficiency and scalability, but the paper argues the same speed of adoption has opened serious security gaps. It organizes Docker security into six domains—image security, runtime security, network security, configuration management, supply chain security, and monitoring and logging—and maps each domain's common failure modes to concrete mitigations. Its central assertion is that embedding security into every phase of the software development lifecycle, rather than bolting it on after deployment, is what lets organizations keep containerized applications resilient against evolving threats. For a practitioner, the paper offers a structured checklist of where Docker deployments tend to break and what controls belong in each layer.

What carries the argument

The carrying structure is a six-domain taxonomy of container security, each domain treated as a stage with its own failure modes and countermeasures, tied together by the principle that security must be integrated into the software development lifecycle rather than applied at the end. The taxonomy does the argumentative work: it turns the diffuse problem of Docker security into a manageable set of gaps and matching controls, so that the paper's recommendations for image scanning, runtime hardening, network segmentation, configuration automation, supply chain vetting, and log aggregation can be presented as one coherent layered defense.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison of production container environments that fully implement the paper's six categories against matched environments that implement none, counting confirmed security incidents per service-year, would settle the claim: if the incident rates are statistically indistinguishable, the paper's central prescription is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that Docker's security risk is not a single exploit but a chain of weak points spanning the whole container lifecycle: base images pulled from untrusted sources, over-privileged and poorly isolated runtimes, permissive unencrypted networks, insecure default and manual configurations, unvetted third-party dependencies, and missing visibility from fragmented logging. The paper contends that each of these points is addressable by known practices—signed and scanned images, least privilege and namespace and cgroup isolation, segmentation and encryption, automated configuration baselines, dependency vetting and software bills of materials, and centralized real-time monitoring—and that applying them as a layered program across the SDLC materially strengthens an organization's security posture. It presents this as a framework rather than as a measured outcome, with the central claim being that the combination, not any single tool, is what creates resilience.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the assumption that protecting images, runtimes, networks, configurations, supply chains, and logging covers the important ways Docker containers get attacked, so that doing all six well is enough to make deployments materially safer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Organizations that adopt signed, verified base images and scan them before deployment reduce their exposure to known vulnerabilities and malicious code from public registries.
  • Enforcing least privilege, namespaces, cgroups, and runtime monitoring limits the blast radius of a compromised container and makes container escape harder.
  • Network segmentation, microsegmentation, and encryption curb lateral movement between containers and protect data in transit.
  • Automated configuration management, role-based access control, and secure defaults prevent the human-error misconfigurations that commonly open Docker environments to attack.
  • Centralized logging, real-time alerting, and software bill of materials practices turn post-incident guesswork into auditable, faster response.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's explicit claims, the structure it lays out implies that vulnerability scanners are not the real backstop: because scanners only know published CVEs, runtime monitoring and logging carry the weight for unknown threats.
  • An unstated consequence is that the six categories have unequal cost-to-benefit ratios, with image and configuration controls being cheap preventives while full monitoring and SIEM tooling is the expensive layer that makes the other layers auditable.
  • The taxonomy is presented as complete, but the continued movement of container workloads toward serverless execution and eBPF-based security tooling suggests the set of dominant domains may need revision, a question the paper does not address.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a narrative survey of Docker security organized into six domains: image security, runtime security, network security, configuration management, supply chain security, and monitoring/logging. For each domain it describes current gaps and recommends best practices, such as image signing and scanning, least-privilege execution, network segmentation, centralized logging, and CI/CD-integrated configuration management. The abstract and conclusion assert that integrating security throughout the software development lifecycle will materially strengthen organizational security posture and make containerized infrastructure resilient against evolving threats. The paper contains no experiments, datasets, or systematic evaluation; its support consists of cited prior work, tables of CVEs, and practice-oriented recommendations.

Significance. If the recommendations were backed by evidence, the paper could serve as a useful practitioner checklist for Docker hardening. It does offer a structured, broad enumeration of best practices and cites a large number of primary sources, which may help readers locate relevant literature. However, the central claim is causal and empirical, and the manuscript provides no empirical support for it. The factual errors in the CVE table and the inconsistent attribution of quantitative figures further reduce its reliability as a reference. The contribution is best described as an opinionated survey, not a validated research result.

major comments (4)
  1. [§1.1, Table 1] The CVE mapping in Table 1 and the accompanying text contains several factual errors that are load-bearing for a reference paper. In the "Misconfigured Permissions" row, CVE-2022-27666 is labeled "Dirty Pipe"; the Dirty Pipe exploit is CVE-2022-0847, while CVE-2022-27666 is a separate Linux kernel vulnerability. In the "Hardcoded Secrets" row, CVE-2020-0601 is listed, but this CVE concerns a Windows CryptoAPI certificate-validation bypass (CurveBall) and has no evident relationship to hardcoded secrets in container images. The same row's use of CVE-2021-22555 is also misleading: that CVE is a netfilter privilege-escalation bug in the Linux kernel, not a permission misconfiguration in a container image. Because the paper's value depends on accurate threat-to-control mapping, these errors should be corrected or the affected rows should be removed.
  2. [Abstract, §7] The central assertion that integrating security throughout the SDLC "will" materially reduce Docker-related risk is an empirical causal claim, but the manuscript never tests it. There is no dataset, no baseline-versus-hardened comparison, no incident analysis, and no systematic literature-selection protocol. The closest quantitative evidence, the "70%" dependency figure and the "50%" throughput drop in §6.1, are imported from individual studies without validation and without stating their scope. As written, the conclusion rests on authority and narrative rather than on evidence, which is disproportionate to the strength of the claim in the abstract.
  3. [Literature Review table, §7] The quantitative claims are inconsistently attributed. The literature-review table attributes the "70% of security issues in containers are linked to unvetted dependencies" finding to "Sultan et al. (2019)" under "Container Supply Chain Security," but the conclusion attributes the same figure to reference [155], which is a different paper (Manu et al., 2016). Neither attribution points to a primary source with a described methodology. Similarly, §6.1 states that "application throughput can drop by as much as 50%" and cites [132], an I/O and NVMe-specific study; the statement is presented as a general result without the storage context. These unverified and inconsistently cited numbers are load-bearing for the paper's recommendations, and they need to be either substantiated with primary sources or removed.
  4. [Introduction, §1] The paper asserts in the Introduction that the critical aspects of container security "include" the six chosen domains, but it never justifies why this set is the right or sufficient decomposition of the problem. Orchestration-level threats, such as Kubernetes API-server abuse, multi-tenancy isolation failures, and admission-control bypasses, receive only scattered mentions, and no threat model is given to show that the selected domains cover the major Docker attack surface. If the paper's contribution is a framework for layered security, the completeness of the domain list is a load-bearing assumption and should be argued rather than assumed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] The reference list is inconsistent and incomplete: [1], [2], and [4] all point to the same Snyk page, and several entries contain formatting corruption (e.g., ref 129) or URLs with line breaks; the list needs a full cleanup.
  2. [Literature Review table] The Shin & Park (2018) row repeats the Merkel (2014) methodology text verbatim ("Introduced Docker containers...") instead of describing Shin & Park's actual contribution; this appears to be a copy-paste error.
  3. [Figures 1-4] The captions for Figures 1-4 describe flowcharts, but the figures themselves are not present in the manuscript text; please verify that the final PDF includes the images.
  4. [§4.1, Manual Configuration Changes] References [72]-[74] are prior work by the current authors, but they are not identified as self-citations or described in relation to the current paper; this should be disclosed and justified.
  5. [§6.1, Lack of Continuous Monitoring] The first sentence states that continuous monitoring is "not possible" and the rest of the paragraph argues the opposite; the paragraph should be rewritten to state the actual gap.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a narrative survey with no derivation chain; refs 72-74 are non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper is a narrative survey of Docker security practices, not a formal derivation. Its central claim—that integrating image, runtime, network, configuration, supply-chain, and monitoring/logging controls throughout the SDLC improves security posture—is presented as a recommendation synthesized from external sources, not as a result derived from fitted parameters or from the authors' prior work. The only self-citations (refs 72-74) appear in Section 4.1 to support generic background claims about host-kernel sharing, automation inconsistencies, and technical debt; these are not load-bearing, and the configuration-management recommendation is additionally grounded in external references [75][76]. No equation, fitted value, or prediction is reused as an input. The CVE misattributions and unsupported empirical assertions noted by the reviewer are correctness and reliability concerns, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a literature review with no derivations or new entities. Its premises are standard domain assumptions about container threats, such as the shared-kernel risk and the prevalence of vulnerable images. No free parameters are fitted because no quantitative model is proposed.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Containerized applications face serious security threats that must be mitigated.
    The paper's entire premise is that Docker container environments are exposed to significant security risks, as stated in the Introduction.
  • domain assumption Containers share the host operating system kernel, creating a larger attack surface.
    This assumption underpins the runtime and isolation discussions, e.g., the sections on insufficient isolation and container escape vulnerabilities.
  • domain assumption Docker images can contain known vulnerabilities, malicious code, and outdated dependencies.
    The image security section assumes that base images and third-party packages are a primary source of risk, citing prior studies and CVEs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Docker under Siege: Securing Containers in the Modern Era." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4M3474IK

@misc{pith2026250602043,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Docker under Siege: Securing Containers in the Modern Era},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4M3474IK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02043}
}
read the original abstract

Containerization, driven by Docker, has transformed application development and deployment by enhancing efficiency and scalability. However, the rapid adoption of container technologies introduces significant security challenges that require careful management. This paper investigates key areas of container security, including runtime protection, network safeguards, configuration best practices, supply chain security, and comprehensive monitoring and logging solutions. We identify common vulnerabilities within these domains and provide actionable recommendations to address and mitigate these risks. By integrating security throughout the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC), organizations can reinforce their security posture, creating a resilient and reliable containerized application infrastructure that withstands evolving threats.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02043 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Fig2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fig3. Automated configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [155]

    Manu, A., Patel, J., & Akhtar, S. (2016). Docker container security via heuristics -based multilateral security -conceptual and pragmatic study. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/75302 17/

    work page 2016

  2. [132]

    Atatus. (n.d.). Docker Logging: Effective Strategies for Docker Log Management . Retrieved from https://www.atatus.com/blog/docker-logging- best-practices/

    work page

  3. [2]

    Docker Docs. (n.d.). Security announcements. Retrieved from Docker Security

  4. [4]

    Snyk. (n.d.). 10 Docker Security Best Practices. Retrieved from Snyk

  5. [5]

    Malhotra, R., Bansal, A., & Kessentini, M. (2023). Vulnerability Analysis of Docker Hub Official Images and Verified Images. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE), 17-20 July 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Malhotra, R., Bansal, A., & Kessentini, M. (2023). Vulnerability Analysis of Docker Hub Official Images and Verified Images. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE), 17-20 July 2023. Link

    2023

  7. [7]

    Jiang, W., & Zheng, L. (2020). Vulnerability Analysis and Security Research of Docker Container. In 2020 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Information Systems and Computer Aided Education (ICISCAE), 27 -29 September

    2020

  8. [8]

    Docker. (n.d.). Docker Content Trust. Retrieved from Docker Documentation

Show all 140 references
  1. [9]

    Aqua Security. (n.d.). Container Security. Retrieved from Aqua Security

  2. [10]

    Trivy. (n.d.). Vulnerability Scanner for Containers and other Artifacts. Retrieved from Trivy GitHub

  3. [12]

    OWASP. (n.d.). Application Container Security. Retrieved from OW ASP

  4. [13]

    Malhotra, R., Bansal, A., & Kessentini, M. (2023). Vulnerability Analysis of Docker Hub Official Images and Verified Images. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE), 17 -20 July 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/SOSE58276.2023. 00025

    2023

  5. [14]

    Docker. (n.d.). Best Practices for Docker. Retrieved from Docker Best Practices

  6. [15]

    Kubernetes. (n.d.). Role -Based Access Control (RBAC) Authorization. Retrieved from Kubernetes Documentation

  7. [16]

    Calico. (n.d.). Container Security: 7 Key Components and 8 Critical Best Practices. Retrieved from Tigera

  8. [17]

    Saxena, V ., Saxena, D., & Singh, U. (2022). Security Enhancement using Image verification method to Secure Docker Containers. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Information Management & Machine Intelligence . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b6 45bbad9eb0...

    2022

  9. [18]

    Yang, N., Chen, C., Yuan, T., Wang, Y ., Gu, X., & Yang, D. (2022). Security hardening solution for docker container. 2022 International Conference on Cyber - Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery (CyberC) . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/35 a5f38d0f399b...

    2022

  10. [19]

    K., Dutta, P

    Bhardwaj, A. K., Dutta, P. K., & Chintale, P. (2024). Securing Container Images through Automated Vulnerability Detection in Shift -Left CI/CD Pipelines. Babylonian Journal of Networking . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a6 3906d9176be6500307ae16532cff125648d 960

    2024

  11. [21]

    Krahn, R., Dragoti, D., Gregor, F., Quoc, D., Schiavoni, V ., Felber, P., Souza, C., Brito, A., & Fetzer, C. (2020). TEEMon: A continuous performance monitoring framework for TEEs. Proceedings of the 21st International Middleware Conference. https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...

    2020

  12. [22]

    D., Jha, S., & Mcdaniel, P

    Rastogi, V ., Davidson, D., Carli, L. D., Jha, S., & Mcdaniel, P. (2016). Towards Least Privilege Containers with Cimplifier. ArXiv. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/10 745fa635ecfbb4206f3c148bca80c4a493d7 ac

    2016

  13. [23]

    Zhang, M., Marino, D., & Efstathopoulos, P. (2015). Harbormaster: Policy Enforcement for Containers. 2015 IEEE 7th International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e6 88385278a2faff803ce5b245dfb4ec3bdffda 8

    2015

  14. [24]

    Alles, G. R. (2018). Análise da utilização de tecnologias de contêineres para aplicações de alto desempenho . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/51 10630be6891c7a8ced1539449a050794ae4 89e

    2018

  15. [25]

    T., Chennareddy, V ., & Ali, K

    Ajith, V ., Cyriac, T., Chavda, C., Kiyani, A. T., Chennareddy, V ., & Ali, K. (2024). Analyzing Docker Vulnerabilities through Static and Dynamic Methods and Enhancing IoT Security with AWS IoT Core, CloudWatch, and GuardDuty. IoT. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4c 089...

    2024

  16. [26]

    Gajbhiye, B., Goel, O., & Pandian, P. K. G. (2024). Managing Vulnerabilities in Containerized and Kubernetes Environments. Journal of Quantum Science and Technology . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/05f 6e461cc24b2680baa4b98fae766d41a8f4b 73

    2024

  17. [28]

    E., Soltane, M., Belguidoum, M., Bennacer, S., & Kitouni, I

    Eldjou, A., Amoura, M. E., Soltane, M., Belguidoum, M., Bennacer, S., & Kitouni, I. (2023). Enhancing Container Runtime Security: A Case Study in Threat Detection. Tunisian-Algerian Joint Conference on Applied Computing . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ef9 6b9178b4fada1...

    2023

  18. [29]

    Fournier, G., Afchain, S., & Baubeau, S. (2021). Runtime Security Monitoring with eBPF. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8a 768ccb634f7527885cae4cd5348eba01065 b80

    2021

  19. [30]

    Hashemian, R., Carlsson, N., Krishnamurthy, D., & Arlitt, M. (2020). Contention Aware Web of Things Emulation Testbed. Proceedings of the ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ae6c8319e7 ea739f3f18398daeab2706aaef2ce7

    2020

  20. [31]

    Verdugo, P., Salvachiua, J., & Huecas, G. (2017). An agile container-based approach to TaaS. 2017 56th FITCE Congress . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7ebf1533ba d78e306dd6deb4cbae53c1017a79f4

    2017

  21. [33]

    Zeng, W., Fan, R., Wang, Z., Xiao, Y ., Huang, R., & Liu, M. (2023). Research on Docker Container Network Isolation and Security Management for Multi -Tenant Environments. Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Communication Network and Machine Learning. https://w...

    2023

  22. [34]

    A., & Miers, C

    Cochak, H., Koslovski, G., Pillon, M. A., & Miers, C. (2021). RunC and Kata runtime using Docker: a network perspective comparison. 2021 IEEE Latin -American Conference on Communications (LATINCOM). https://www.semanticscholar.org/p aper/91fb4da812a4f5de119719392a5dc70c55cbcaf b

    2021

  23. [36]

    K. A. Babar, Understanding container isolation mechanisms for building security-sensitive private cloud. Sydney, Australia: ResearchGate, 2017

    2017

  24. [37]

    Findlay, W., Barrera, D., & Somayaji, A. (2102). Bpfcontain: Fixing the soft underbelly of container security. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2102.06972. https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.06972

    arXiv

  25. [38]

    Barlev, S., Basil, Z., Kohanim, S., & Peleg, R. (2016). Secure yet usable: Protecting servers and Linux containers . https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/75233 63/

    2016

  26. [39]

    Muniswamy, S., & Vignesh, R. (2022). DSTS: A hybrid optimal and deep learning for dynamic scalable task scheduling on container cloud environment. Journal of Cloud Computing . https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13677- 022-00304-7

    2022 doi

  27. [40]

    E., Mir, I

    Kafhali, S. E., Mir, I. E., Salah, K., & Hanini, M. (2020). Dynamic scalability model for containerized cloud services . https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13369- 020-04847-2

    2020 doi

  28. [41]

    Barletta, M., Cinque, M., & Simone, L. D. (2024). Criticality-aware monitoring and orchestration for containerized industry 4.0 environments. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3604567

    2024 doi

  29. [42]

    Gantikow, H., Reich, C., Knahl, M., & Clarke, N. (2019). Rule-based security monitoring of containerized environments . https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3- 030-49432-2_4

    2019 doi

  30. [43]

    Misa, C., Kannan, S., & Durairajan, R. (2019). Can we containerize internet measurements? https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3340301.334113 0

    2019

  31. [44]

    Klein, D. (2019). Micro -segmentation: securing complex cloud environments. Network Security. https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/abs/10.1016 /S1353-4858%2819%2930034-0

    2019

  32. [47]

    F., Macri, D., Greco, E., & Fazio, P

    Gentile, A. F., Macri, D., Greco, E., & Fazio, P. (2024). IoT IP Overlay Network Security Performance Analysis with Open Source Infrastructure Deployment. J. Cybersecur. Priv. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f75455c4ed ff911f117062e819aca293cba9557b

    2024

  33. [49]

    Surantha, N., Ivan, F., & Chandra, R. (2023). A case analysis for Kubernetes network security of financial service industry in Indonesia using zero trust model. Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2b2111340c b845e6d1e339d2...

    2023

  34. [50]

    de, & Andreou, M

    Weever, C. de, & Andreou, M. (2020). Zero Trust Network Security Model in containerized environments. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5d2b02e5d 079886c44d624752accc20b064e5a15

    2020

  35. [52]

    Zhong, Z., Xu, M., Rodriguez, M., & Xu, C. (2022). Machine learning-based orchestration of containers: A taxonomy and future directions . https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3510415

    2022 doi

  36. [53]

    Sofia, R., Dykeman, D., Urbanetz, P., & Galal, A. (2023). Dynamic, Context -Aware Cross- Layer Orchestration of Containerized Applications . https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10225 530/

    2023

  37. [54]

    Struhár, V ., Craciunas, S., & Ashjaei, M. (2021). React: Enabling real -time container orchestration. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/96136 85/

    2021

  38. [55]

    E., Minetto, A., Dovis, F., Pica, E., Cesaroni, C., & Romano, V

    Mehr, I. E., Minetto, A., Dovis, F., Pica, E., Cesaroni, C., & Romano, V . (2023). An Open Architecture for Signal Monitoring and Recording Based on SDR and Docker Containers: A GNSS Use Case. IEEE EUROCON 2023 - 20th International Conference on Smart Technologies . https://ww...

    2023

  39. [56]

    Jain, H. (2021). Monitoring of Docker Containers with Round Robin Database . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4bcf673efc 594b7df2b5976e134e6fb09ba2e15f

    2021

  40. [57]

    Franco, J., Acar, A., Aris, A., & Uluagac, S. (2023). Forensic Analysis of Cryptojacking in Host- Based Docker Containers Using Honeypots. ICC 2023 - IEEE International Conference on Communications. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/235aa07c44 e436c9abbe5b3ddfbdd11a0e6217a6

    2023

  41. [59]

    VS, D., Sethuraman, S., & Khan, M. (2023). Container security: precaution levels, mitigation strategies, and research perspectives. Computers & Security . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S 0167404823004005

    2023

  42. [60]

    Nickle, J. (2023). A Research Exploring Practical Threat Deterrence Methodologies Utilizing Secure Identity Micro -Segmentation. https://search.proquest.com/openview/a9bea7d4133 07133a55976e66612bae1/1?pq- origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

    2023

  43. [61]

    Nugroho, I., & Marlina, S. (2024). Effective Security Protocols for Containerized Applications . https://studies.eigenpub.com/index.php/erst/article/ view/83

    2024

  44. [62]

    Jansen, B. A. (2018). MSc System and Network Engineering Research Project 2 Security By Default A Comparative Security Evaluation of Default Configurations . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2a7dd6006 626c7126617181636a69d16c717b147

    2018

  45. [63]

    Kithulwatta, W. M. C. J. T., Jayasena, K., Kumara, B., & Rathnayaka, R. (2022). Performance Evaluation of Docker-based Apache and Nginx Web Server. 2022 3rd International Conference for Emerging Technology (INCET) . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/54126de112 713c3f8b8909...

    2022

  46. [64]

    Su, K.-M., Liu, I., & Li, J. -S. (2020). The Risk of Industrial Control System Programmable Logic Controller Default Configurations. 2020 International Computer Symposium (ICS) . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f52f133fe0 76120629bfd91868be6354e4333a60

    2020

  47. [66]

    Raj, P. (2024). Continuous Integration for New Service Deployment and Service Validation Script for Vault. INTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/96e78ef19e 63455191f211cb39867a54a6e1edb5

    2024

  48. [67]

    Loukidis-Andreou, F., & Giannakopoulos, I. (2018). Docker-sec: A fully automated container security enhancement mechanism . https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/84164 32/

    2018

  49. [69]

    Kermabon-Bobinnec, H., & Gholipourchoubeh, M. (2022). Prospec: Proactive security policy enforcement for containers . https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3508398.351151 5

    2022

  50. [70]

    Mullinix, S., Konomi, E., & Townsend, R. (2020). On security measures for containerized applications imaged with docker . https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.0481

    2020

  51. [71]

    Wahanani, H., Idhom, M., & Kristiawan, K. Y . (2021). Implementation Of Docker Container On Local Network By Applying Reverse Proxy. IJCONSIST JOURNALS . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ee9f1dc131 e6c8d2c59936d18492b69d62cb0e1e

    2021

  52. [72]

    Thiyagarajan, G., Bist, V ., & Nayak, P. (2025). Securing Credit Inquiries: The Role of Real- Time User Approval in Preventing SSN Identity Theft. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18861

    2025 arXiv

  53. [73]

    Thiyagarajan, G., Bist, V ., & Nayak, P. (2024). AI-Driven Configuration Drift Detection in Cloud Environments. Gogulakrishnan Thiyagarajan, Vinay Bist, Prabhudarshi Nayak.(2024). AI -Driven Configuration Drift Detection in Cloud Environments. International Journal of Communic...

    2024

  54. [74]

    Thiyagarajan, G., Bist, V ., & Nayak, P. (2025). The Hidden Dangers of Outdated Software: A Cyber Security Perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13922

    2025 arXiv

  55. [75]

    U., Samad, A., Alissa, K

    Alyas, T., Ali, S., Khan, H. U., Samad, A., Alissa, K. A., & Saleem, M. (2022). Container Performance and Vulnerability Management for Container Security Using Docker Engine. Security and Communication Networks . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5e59d661f7 f1e356e96810ac3...

    2022

  56. [78]

    Pires, A., Matos, F., Santos, A., Pessoa, D., & Maciel, P. D. (2022). PipeConf: An Integrated Architecture for the Automated Configuration of Network Assets. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dbd88c8c56 812d6fad93016e7f...

    2022

  57. [79]

    Suryawanshi, H., & Deshmukh, P. R. (2022). Building a UI Based Tool for Configuration Management. 2022 International Conference on Industry 4.0 Technology (I4Tech) . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b93555576 0a93e3bab587cbe645bcf3039831484

    2022

  58. [81]

    Lang, D., Jiang, H., Ding, W., & Bai, Y . (2019). Research on Docker Role Access Control Mechanism Based on DRBAC. Journal of Physics: Conference Series . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0b7d67b7b 520fc04d8ba6e68116c610db21853c0

    2019

  59. [82]

    Pasomsup, C., & Limpiyakorn, Y . (2021). HT-RBAC: A Design of Role-based Access Control Model for Microservice Security Manager. 2021 International Conference on Big Data Engineering and Education (BDEE) . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1f8acfefbda ca20fc15c65d88186e5a5880c8407

    2021

  60. [83]

    M., & Kahonge, A

    Rugendo, T. M., & Kahonge, A. M. (2021). Access Control Model for Container based Virtual Environments. International Journal of Computer Applications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32628/CSEIT25112773 3674 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/35690002d a12487f3d4a5c0970bc8344af68fc6c

    2021

  61. [84]

    Patra, M., Kumari, A., Sahoo, B., & Turuk, A. K. (2022). Docker Security: Threat Model and Best Practices to Secure a Docker Container. 2022 IEEE 2nd International Symposium on Sustainable Energy, Signal Processing and Cyber Security (iSSSC). https://www.semanticscholar.org/pa...

    2022

  62. [85]

    Mousa, A., Tuffaha, W., Abdulhaq, M., Qadry, M., & M.M., O. O. (2023). In -Depth Network Security for Docker Containers. 2023 14th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ec6f69bd20 f617091...

    2023

  63. [86]

    Xing, Y ., Cao, J., Wang, X., Torabi, S., Sun, K., Yan, F., & Li, Q. (2022). SysCap: Profiling and Crosschecking Syscall and Capability Configurations for Docker Images. 2022 IEEE Conference on Communications and Network Security (CNS) . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7...

    2022

  64. [87]

    Chamoli, S., & Sarishma. (2021). Docker Security: Architecture, Threat Model, and Best Practices. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981- 16-1696-9_24

    2021 doi

  65. [88]

    Yasrab, R. (1804). Mitigating docker security issues. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1804.05039 . https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.05039

    arXiv

  66. [89]

    Alvi, M. H. (2021). Security best practices for containerized applications . https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26095.04000

    2021

  67. [91]

    Perera, H. P. D. S., Silva, H. S. T. D., Ganegoda, B. A., Reza, B., Karunarathne, A. D. H. U., & Senarathne, A. (2022). Docker Container Security Orchestration and Posture Management Tool. 2022 13th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologie...

    2022

  68. [92]

    -A., & Coffman, J

    Brady, K., Moon, S., Nguyen, T. -A., & Coffman, J. (2020). Docker Container Security in Cloud Computing. 2020 10th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8c157612a9 bf3643218b875a534bc7fd2fea0eeb

    2020

  69. [93]

    Mubanda, D., Mandela, N., Mbinda, T., & Ayesiga, C. (2023). Evaluating Docker Container Security through Penetration Testing: A Smart Computer Security. 2023 International Conference on Communication, Security and Artificial Intelligence (ICCSAI) . https://www.semanticscholar....

    2023

  70. [94]

    Sharma, A., Keswani, B., & Sangwan, A. (2021). Optimization of docker container security and its performance evaluation. Journal of Discrete Mathematical Sciences and Cryptography . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c065a90885 0379b03b25849d084bba5bf1c3d40d

    2021

  71. [95]

    Shah, J., Dubaria, D., & Widhalm, J. (2018). A Survey of DevOps tools for Networking. 2018 9th IEEE Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ef73549a16 2f905ee13319805dd4bfb442d834ea

    2018

  72. [97]

    Sultan, S., Ahmad, I., & Dimitriou, T. (2019). Container security: Issues, challenges, and the road ahead. IEEE Access . https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/86934 91/

    2019

  73. [98]

    Egbuna, O. (2022). Security Challenges and Solutions in Kubernetes Container Orchestration. Journal of Science & Technology . https://www.thesciencebrigade.com/jst/article/view/ 233

    2022

  74. [99]

    Lopes, N., Martins, R., Correia, M., & Serrano, S. (2020). Container hardening through automated seccomp profiling . https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3429885.342996 6

    2020

  75. [100]

    Lang, D., Jiang, H., Ding, W., & Bai, Y . (2019). Research on docker role access control mechanism based on drbac . https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742- 6596/1168/3/032127/meta DOI: https://doi.org/10.32628/CSEIT25112773 3674

    2019 doi

  76. [101]

    Anirudh, U., & Darshan, S. (2024). Role - Based Virtuosity in Virtual Environments: A Technical Exploration of Access Control and Authentication Mechanisms. Cloud Security . https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.120 1/9781003455448-10/role-based-virtuosity-virtual- en...

    2024

  77. [102]

    Li, Y ., & Sun, H. (2022). Research and Design of Docker Technology Based Authority Management System . https://search.proquest.com/openview/a0307c26aa0 1c102b784ff7b0876374c/1?pq- origsite=gscholar&cbl=237303

    2022

  78. [103]

    M., Bandaru, C

    Islam, R., Patamsetti, V ., Gadhi, A., Gondu, R. M., Bandaru, C. M., Kesani, S. C., & Abiona, O. (2023). The Future of Cloud Computing: Benefits and Challenges. International Journal of Communications, Network and System Sciences . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b07abe0...

    2023

  79. [104]

    Zou, Z., Xie, Y ., Huang, K., Xu, G., & Feng, D. (2019). A docker container anomaly monitoring system based on optimized isolation forest. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/88072 63/

    2019

  80. [105]

    Rapatti, A. (2021). Rootless Docker Containers in Continuous Integration . https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/498794

    2021

  81. [106]

    Madhumathi, R. (2018). The relevance of container monitoring towards container intelligence. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/84937 66/

    2018

  82. [107]

    Casalicchio, E., & Perciballi, V . (2017). Measuring docker performance: What a mess!!! https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3053600.305360 5

    2017

  83. [109]

    Cito, J., Schermann, G., & Wittern, J. (2017). An empirical analysis of the docker container ecosystem on github . https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/79623 82/

    2017

  84. [110]

    Merkel, D. (2014). Docker: lightweight linux containers for consistent development and deployment. Linux j . https://www.seltzer.com/margo/teaching/CS508.19/ papers/merkel14.pdf

    2014

  85. [111]

    Sinde, S., Thakkalapally, B., & Ramidi, M. (2022). Continuous integration and deployment automation in aws cloud infrastructure . https://www.academia.edu/download/88213515/Co ntinuous_Integration_and_Deployment_Automatio n_in_AWS_Cloud_Infrastructure.pdf

    2022

  86. [112]

    Garg, S., & Garg, S. (2019). Automated cloud infrastructure, continuous integration and continuous delivery using docker with robust container security . https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/86953 32/

    2019

  87. [113]

    Yang, N., Chen, C., Yuan, T., Wang, Y ., Gu, X., & Yang, D. (2022). Security hardening solution for docker container. 2022 International Conference on Cyber -Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery (CyberC) . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/35a5f38d0f 399b0...

    2022

  88. [114]

    Opdebeeck, R., Lesy, J., Zerouali, A., & Roover, C. D. (2023). The Docker Hub Image Inheritance Network: Construction and Empirical Insights. 2023 IEEE 23rd International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM) . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper...

    2023

  89. [115]

    Chen, E. (2017). An approach for improving transparency and traceability of industrial supply chain with Blockchain technology. https://trepo.tuni.fi/handle/123456789/25401

    2017

  90. [116]

    Ravi, D., Ramachandran, S., & Vignesh, R. (2022). Privacy preserving transparent supply chain management through Hyperledger Fabric . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S 2096720922000136

    2022

  91. [117]

    D., & Lioy, A

    Benedictis, M. D., & Lioy, A. (2019). Integrity verification of Docker containers for a lightweight cloud environment. Future Generation Computer Systems . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S 0167739X18327201

    2019

  92. [118]

    Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., & Vecchio, P. D. (2022). Blockchain technology for bridging trust, traceability and transparency in circular supply chain. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S 0378720621000823

    2022

  93. [120]

    Zabin, H. (2017). Implementation of docker integrated with cloud computing and code quality analysis (test automation) . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8178275bcf 64491d981ba8318209b7994f3d36f5

    2017

  94. [122]

    Ksontini, E., Kessentini, M., Ferreira, T., & Hassan, F. (2021). Refactorings and Technical Debt in Docker Projects: An Empirical Study. 2021 36th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8ed334568 3127ae...

    2021

  95. [123]

    Zhang, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Wu, Y ., Lu, Y ., Wang, T., & Mao, X. (2020). Exploring the Dependency Network of Docker Containers: Structure, Diversity, and Relationship. Proceedings of the 12th Asia - Pacific Symposium on Internetware . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7bb18bc...

    2020

  96. [124]

    Noecker, C. (2018). Making Scientific Applications Portable: Software Containers and Package Managers . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cef86ff0553 a75e4694f28f55f48196e4484e173

    2018

  97. [125]

    Kawaguchi, N., Hart, C., & Uchiyama, H. (2024). Understanding the Effectiveness of SBOM Generation Tools for Manually Installed Packages in Docker Containers. Journal of Internet Services and Information Security . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1da7537bc1 ef177fafc42bf...

    2024

  98. [126]

    Mounesan, M., Siadati, H., & Jafarikhah, S. (2023). Exploring the Threat of Software Supply Chain Attacks on Containerized Applications. 2023 16th International Conference on Security of Information and Networks (SIN) . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/afe2dcaaa6 4021e451...

    2023

  99. [127]

    B., Liang, X., Zoysa, K

    Bandara, E., Shetty, S., Mukkamala, R., Rahman, A., Foytik, P. B., Liang, X., Zoysa, K. D., & Keong, N. W. (2024). DevSec -GPT — Generative-AI (with Custom -Trained Meta’s Llama2 LLM), Blockchain, NFT and PBOM Enabled Cloud Native Container Vulnerability Management and Pipelin...

    2024

  100. [128]

    Paul, B., & Rao, M. (2022). Zero -Trust Model for Smart Manufacturing Industry. Applied Sciences. https://www.mdpi.com/2076- 3417/13/1/221

    2022

  101. [129]

    T., Ali, M., Barnaghi, P., Ganea, S., Ganz, F., Haushwirth, M., Brigitte, Kjærgaard, ̈mper, D

    ̈njes, R. T., Ali, M., Barnaghi, P., Ganea, S., Ganz, F., Haushwirth, M., Brigitte, Kjærgaard, ̈mper, D. K., Mileo, A., Nechifor, S., Sheth, A., Lasse, & Vestergaard. (2015). Real-Time IoT Stream Processing and Large -scale Data Analytics for Smart City Applications . https://...

    2015

  102. [130]

    Ekanayaka, E. M. I. M., Thathsarani, J. K. K. H., Karunanayaka, D. S., Kuruwitaarachchi, N., & Skandakumar, N. (2023). Enhancing Devops Infrastructure For Efficient Management Of Microservice Applications. 2023 IEEE International Conference on E -Business Engineering (ICEBE) ....

    2023

  103. [131]

    U., Iwaya, L

    Haque, M. U., Iwaya, L. H., & Babar, M. (2020). Challenges in Docker Development: A Large-scale Study Using Stack Overflow. Proceedings of the 14th ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM) . https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...

    2020

  104. [133]

    Devconnected. (n.d.). Docker Logs: Complete Guide . Retrieved from https://devconnected.com/docker-logs-complete- guide/

  105. [134]

    Alves, M., & Paula, H. (2021). Identifying logging practices in open source python containerized application projects . https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3474624.347463 1

    2021

  106. [135]

    Bhimani, J., Yang, J., Yang, Z., Mi, N., Xu, Q., Awasthi, M., Pandurangan, R., & Balakrishnan, V . (2016). Understanding performance of I/O intensive containerized applications for NVMe SSDs. 2016 IEEE 35th International Performance Computing and Communications Conference (IPC...

    2016

  107. [137]

    T., Chennareddy, V ., & Ali, K

    Ajith, V ., Cyriac, T., Chavda, C., Kiyani, A. T., Chennareddy, V ., & Ali, K. (2024). Analyzing Docker Vulnerabilities through Static and Dynamic Methods and Enhancing IoT Security with AWS IoT Core, CloudWatch, and GuardDuty. IoT. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4c0899...

    2024

  108. [138]

    Gajbhiye, B., Goel, O., & Pandian, P. K. G. (2024). Managing Vulnerabilities in Containerized and Kubernetes Environments. Journal of Quantum Science and Technology . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/05f6e461cc 24b2680baa4b98fae766d41a8f4b73

    2024

  109. [139]

    Organiściak, P., Kuraś, P., Strzałka, D., Paszkiewicz, A., Bolanowski, M., Kowal, B., Ćmil, M., Dymora, P., Mazurek, M., & Vanivska, V . (2024). Detection of Incidents and Anomalies in Software-Defined Network – Based Implementations of Critical Infrastructure Resulting in Ada...

    2024

  110. [140]

    P ., Jayawardena, S., Fadhil, A., Kodagoda, N., & Arachchillage, U

    Herath, I. P ., Jayawardena, S., Fadhil, A., Kodagoda, N., & Arachchillage, U. S. S. S. (2023). Streamlining Software Release Process and Resource Management for Microservice -based Architecture on multi -cloud. 2023 25th International Multitopic Conference (INMIC) . https://w...

    2023

  111. [141]

    Farcic, V . (2016). The DevOps 2.0 Toolkit: Automating the Continuous Deployment Pipeline with Containerized Microservices . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/628b5a10c0 b56dc1e226e3d0fa2b2b61cee7c9db

    2016

  112. [142]

    Bhat, P. (2021). Centralised Cleanup Service for Kubernetes and Cloud Resources. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3308563bbf 87196390f218643cf5c30bc66b34e0

    2021

  113. [143]

    Larsson, M. (2019). Hands-On Microservices with Spring Boot and Spring Cloud . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4828eb757 99a6290f6dc53872a230539acb7d3fc

    2019

  114. [144]

    Mahajan, V ., & Mane, S. (2022). Detection, Analysis and Countermeasures for Container based Misconfiguration using Docker and Kubernetes. 2022 International Conference on Computing, Communication, Security and Intelligent Systems (IC3SIS). https://www.semanticscholar.org/pape...

    2022

  115. [145]

    Chen, L., Liu, J., Xian, M., & Wang, H. (2020). Docker Container Log Collection and Analysis System Based on ELK. 2020 International Conference on Computer Information and Big Data Applications (CIBDA) . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1052dd3dcc a00614048d3c0d7c8476038ad0e7be

    2020

  116. [146]

    L., & Monterrubio, S

    Velásquez, J. L., & Monterrubio, S. M. (2023). Systematic review of SIEM technology: SIEM-SC birth . https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10207- 022-00657-9

    2023 doi

  117. [147]

    Mulyadi, F., Annam, L., & Promya, R. (2020). Implementing dockerized elastic stack for security information and event management . https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/93109 50/

    2020

  118. [148]

    Raheem, M. (2021). Implementing a Secured Container Workload in the Cloud . https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/406583

    2021

  119. [149]

    Hongkamnerd, W., & Tangtrongpairoj, W. (2024). Effects of SIEM Recovery Time: Case Study on Security Onion . https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10594 988/

    2024

  120. [150]

    Rabby, Z. (2022). Building Security Operations Center (SOC) using open source technologies SIEM for industries . https://dspace.bracu.ac.bd/xmlui/handle/10361/227 20

    2022

  121. [151]

    Alanda, A., Mooduto, H., & Hadi, R. (2023). Real -time Defense Against Cyber Threats: Analyzing Wazuh’s Effectiveness in Server Monitoring. JITCE (Journal of Information Technology and Computer Engineering) . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b60aed9608 68df30004784b412620...

    2023

  122. [152]

    Ahamed, W., & Zavarsky, P. (2021). Security audit of docker container images in cloud architecture. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/94781 00/

    2021

  123. [153]

    Brady, K., Moon, S., & Nguyen, T. (2020). Docker container security in cloud computing . https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/90311 95/

    2020

  124. [154]

    Loukidis-Andreou, F., & Giannakopoulos, I. (2018). Docker-sec: A fully automated container security enhancement mechanism . https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/84164 32/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.32628/CSEIT25112773 3674

    2018 doi

  125. [156]

    Merkel, D. (2014). Docker: lightweight linux containers for consistent development and deployment. Linux j, 239(2), 2

    2014

  126. [157]

    (2024, June)

    Song, J., Park, K., Park, C., Kim, J., & Kim, I. (2024, June). Analyzing the container security threat on the 5G Core Network. In 2024 Silicon Valley Cybersecurity Conference (SVCC) (pp. 1-3). IEEE

    2024

  127. [158]

    Sultan, S., Ahmad, I., & Dimitriou, T. (2019). Container security: Issues, challenges, and the road ahead. IEEE access, 7, 52976-52996

    2019

  128. [161]

    Runtime Security for Docker Containers: A Survey

    Zhang, H., & Liu, Y . (2020). " Runtime Security for Docker Containers: A Survey." IEEE Access, 8, 133445-133460

    2020

  129. [162]

    Casalicchio, E. (2019). Container orchestration: A survey. Systems Modeling: Methodologies and Tools, 221-235

    2019

  130. [163]

    Integrating Security into the Continuous Deployment Pipeline: A Case Study

    Mason, T., & Kim, S. (2021). "Integrating Security into the Continuous Deployment Pipeline: A Case Study." ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 30(4), 1-25

    2021

  131. [164]

    (2022, April)

    Kermabon-Bobinnec, H., Gholipourchoubeh, M., Bagheri, S., Majumdar, S., Jarraya, Y ., Pourzandi, M., & Wang, L. (2022, April). Prospec: Proactive security policy enforcement for containers. In Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Priva...

    2022

  132. [165]

    McLaughlin, T. (2021) . Securing Docker: Implementing Security Best Practices for Docker Containers. Apress

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.