Skip to content

Sidecar Container Approach Security Risk Analysis

This document provides a detailed security risk analysis of the Sidecar Container approach to container scanning, which uses shared process namespace between containers in the same pod.

Security Model

The Sidecar Container approach modifies pod definitions to enable shared process namespace, allowing a scanner container to access the target container's processes and filesystem.

Security Characteristics

Security Factor Rating Description
Required Privileges 🟠 Moderate Requires process namespace sharing privileges
Attack Surface 🟠 Moderate Permanently increased during pod lifetime
Credential Exposure 🟢 Minimal Uses short-lived service account tokens
Isolation Level 🔴 Lower Permanently breaks container isolation
Persistence Risk 🟠 Moderate Container persists during pod lifetime

Detailed Risk Assessment

Authentication and Authorization Risks

Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation
Token leakage Low Medium Short-lived tokens, minimal permissions
Excessive permissions Medium Medium Careful RBAC implementation
Authentication bypass Very Low High Standard Kubernetes authentication mechanisms

Operational Risks

Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation
Sidecar persistence High Medium Container remains throughout pod lifecycle
Resource contention Medium Medium Resource limits on sidecar containers
Container interference Medium High Process and filesystem isolation broken

Container Risks

Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation
Container isolation breach High High Permanent process namespace sharing
Sidecar container compromise Medium High Could affect target container
Data exfiltration Medium Medium Shared process space increases risk

Risk Comparison

When compared to other scanning approaches, the Sidecar Container approach presents:

  • Higher risk than the Kubernetes API approach in terms of isolation, persistence, and container security principles
  • Higher risk than the Debug Container approach in terms of persistence and isolation duration

Risk Scenarios and Mitigations

Scenario 1: Sidecar to Target Container Access

Risk: The sidecar container accesses or interferes with the target container processes.

Mitigations:

  1. Sidecar container runs with minimal privileges
  2. Read-only filesystem access
  3. Non-root user execution
  4. Resource limits prevent denial of service

Residual Risk: Medium-High - The shared process namespace fundamentally allows access between containers.

Scenario 2: Process Manipulation

Risk: Sidecar container manipulates processes in the target container.

Mitigations:

  1. Non-privileged sidecar execution
  2. Process visibility only (limited manipulation capability)
  3. Security policies to restrict capabilities
  4. Monitoring for unexpected process activities

Residual Risk: Medium - Process visibility doesn't necessarily grant full manipulation capabilities, but the risk remains higher than other approaches.

Scenario 3: Sidecar Container Compromise

Risk: The sidecar container itself is compromised during operation.

Mitigations:

  1. Minimal tools and packages in sidecar container
  2. Non-privileged execution
  3. Limited network access
  4. Container security hardening

Residual Risk: Medium-High - A compromised sidecar has access to the target container's processes and filesystem.

Enterprise Security Considerations

For enterprise deployments:

  1. Strict Pod Selection: Limit sidecar deployment to specific, non-sensitive applications
  2. Enhanced Monitoring: Implement detailed monitoring of sidecar containers
  3. Network Isolation: Apply strict network policies to sidecar-enabled pods
  4. Container Hardening: Use minimal, hardened images for sidecar containers
  5. Regular Security Reassessment: More frequent security reviews for sidecar deployments

Conclusion

The Sidecar Container approach presents the highest security risk profile among the available container scanning approaches. Its permanent breaking of container isolation principles and persistence throughout the pod lifecycle represent significant departures from container security best practices.

While the approach provides universal container scanning capability (working with both standard and distroless containers), its security implications make it suitable only when other approaches are not viable, and with significant additional security controls in place.

For security-sensitive environments, the Sidecar Container approach should be considered only as a last resort, with full documentation of the security implications, formal risk acceptance, and enhanced security monitoring.