An analysis of security vulnerabilities in container images for scientific data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Software containers greatly facilitate the deployment and reproducibility of scientific data analyses in various platforms. However, container images often contain outdated or unnecessary software packages, which increases the number of security vulnerabilities in the images, widens the attack surface in the container host, and creates substantial security risks for computing infrastructures at large. This article presents a vulnerability analysis of container images for scientific data analysis. We compare results obtained with 4 vulnerability scanners, focusing on the use case of neuroscience data analysis, and quantifying the effect of image update and minification on the number of vulnerabilities. RESULTS: We find that container images used for neuroscience data analysis contain hundreds of vulnerabilities, that software updates remove roughly two-thirds of these vulnerabilities, and that removing unused packages is also effective. CONCLUSIONS: We provide recommendations on how to build container images with fewer vulnerabilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".