<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Seccomp on Pi Stack</title>
    <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/seccomp/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Seccomp on Pi Stack</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/seccomp/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Self-Hosted Container Seccomp Profile Management: AppArmor vs Seccomp vs Firejail (2026)</title>
      <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-05-10-container-seccomp-profile-management-apparmor-firejail-guide/</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-05-10-container-seccomp-profile-management-apparmor-firejail-guide/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Container security extends far beyond image scanning and network isolation. At the kernel level, three complementary security mechanisms — &lt;strong&gt;Seccomp&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;AppArmor&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;Firejail&lt;/strong&gt; — restrict what processes inside containers can actually do. These are not alternatives to each other but rather &lt;strong&gt;defense-in-depth layers&lt;/strong&gt; that work together to create a robust container sandbox. Understanding how each mechanism works and how to manage them effectively is critical for running containers securely in production.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
