<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Security on Experiment, Fail, Learn, Repeat</title>
    <link>https://www.hairizuan.com/tags/security/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Security on Experiment, Fail, Learn, Repeat</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026 Hairizuan Noorazman</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 17:03:51 +0800</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.hairizuan.com/tags/security/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    
    <item>
      <title>The Isolation Boundary of Multikernel Linux Containers</title>
      <link>https://www.hairizuan.com/the-isolation-boundary-of-multikernel-linux-containers/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://www.hairizuan.com/the-isolation-boundary-of-multikernel-linux-containers/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;The phrase “one kernel per container” sounds like a stronger isolation claim than “one process namespace per container.” In a Multikernel Linux runtime, each child really does have its own kernel, process table, boot ID, CPUs, memory description, and root filesystem. That still does not make it equivalent to a virtual machine.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
