eBPF can show what processes, files, and network connections a Kubernetes workload used during an observed period. That evidence can help engineers propose narrower controls, but it does not automatically produce a complete or safe least-privilege policy. First decide which security surface you mean, then observe representative behavior, review a proposed control, and test it before enforcement.
What eBPF observations can—and cannot—tell you
Tools built on eBPF can collect low-level activity such as process execution, file access, and network events. Kubernetes-aware tooling can add context such as the pod or container associated with an event. Tetragon describes Kubernetes-aware security observability and runtime enforcement; Inspektor Gadget collects and enriches data from Kubernetes clusters and Linux hosts.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
An observation is evidence of behavior that occurred under particular conditions. It is not proof that behavior never observed is unnecessary, nor that a policy derived from the observed events is complete. A workload may not have exercised an infrequent scheduled job, recovery path, upgrade, or maintenance operation during the capture window.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Choose the Kubernetes security surface first
“Least privilege” can refer to different controls, and evidence from one surface does not automatically define another. A network connection is not a Linux syscall; neither determines which Kubernetes API actions a service account should have or which pod security settings are appropriate.
#1 Best Overall
| Question to answer | Relevant control or evidence |
|---|---|
| Which network connections should pods be allowed to make? | Review observed network behavior and consider Kubernetes NetworkPolicy. |
| Which Kubernetes API actions should a service account be able to perform? | Review the account’s API permissions against the operations it needs. Network or process observations alone do not establish those permissions. |
| Which API requests should be admitted or rejected based on policy? | Kubernetes documents ValidatingAdmissionPolicy as a policy mechanism for admission decisions. |
| What activity was recorded through the Kubernetes API? | Kubernetes audit logging records API activity; it is distinct from observing workload processes, files, or network events. |
| Which process, file, or network events occurred in a workload? | Use appropriately scoped runtime observation, then map the evidence to the control surface under review. |
Kubernetes documents audit logging, NetworkPolicy, and ValidatingAdmissionPolicy among its security mechanisms. See the Kubernetes security documentation for the mechanisms and their scope.
A workflow for turning observations into reviewed controls
- State the question and target control. Identify the namespace and workload, the behavior of interest, and whether the proposed change concerns network traffic, operating-system activity, Kubernetes API permissions, admission, or pod security.
- Choose and scope an observer. Use a tool whose documented events and context match the question. Tetragon documents observability and runtime enforcement capabilities, while Inspektor Gadget documents eBPF collection and enrichment that maps kernel information to concepts such as pods and containers. Check the relevant Tetragon documentation and Inspektor Gadget documentation.
- Capture representative operating conditions. Include normal operation and, where applicable, scheduled work, failures and recovery, upgrades, and maintenance. Record the observation window and conditions so reviewers can see what the evidence covers.
- Draft a proposal with its evidence trail. Record the workload and namespace, time window, observed behavior, proposed rule, owner, and confidence. Treat missing events cautiously: they establish only that the behavior was not seen during the conditions observed.
- Test before enforcing. Exercise the proposed control outside production, monitor denials and application health, and keep a rollback path. This is an operational review process, not a claim that either tool automatically performs the full conversion from observation to safe policy.
- Review the observer’s own access and platform fit. Confirm what permissions its installation needs, where filtering occurs, and which kernel and deployment requirements apply before running it in a cluster.
How the two projects fit this workflow
Their documented capabilities are useful for different parts of observation and runtime security; they do not establish that either project universally generates least-privilege Kubernetes permissions from arbitrary activity.
| Project | Documented role relevant here | Practical qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Tetragon | Kubernetes-aware security observability and runtime enforcement using eBPF. Its policy library includes observability examples for security-sensitive events, system activity, and networking. | Distinguish a policy that observes events from one that enforces an action. The project documentation supports those capabilities, not a guarantee that observations can be converted automatically into a complete safe permissions policy. |
| Inspektor Gadget | A framework for collecting and inspecting data on Kubernetes clusters and Linux hosts. It packages gadgets as OCI images and can enrich kernel data with Kubernetes and container context. | Its in-tree gadgets require at least Linux 5.10 with BTF enabled according to the requirements documentation; specific needs vary by gadget and deployment platform. |
Filtering does not always mean kernel-level scoping
Inspektor Gadget documents eBPF-side filtering for supported common fields, but says filters involving fields such as namespace, pod name, or selector may instead be applied in user space. That distinction matters when the goal is to limit what data is collected rather than merely what results are displayed. Check the filter behavior for the specific gadget and command in the running gadgets documentation; do not assume every Kubernetes-aware filter restricts collection in the kernel.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Account for the observer’s privileges and trust
Inspektor Gadget’s Kubernetes installer creates cluster-scoped and namespaced RBAC objects. Its installation documentation says installation generally requires cluster-admin or a role combining the necessary permissions with rights to create those objects. A custom role may be auditable, but the documentation does not describe it as meaningfully less privileged.
Rank #3
That access makes the observer part of the cluster’s security boundary. Review its permissions, deployment settings, versions, and platform requirements as deliberately as the workload policy it helps inform. Requirements vary with kernel features and deployment platform; consult the requirements documentation for the relevant setup.
On June 3, 2026, CNCF published a report on the first independent security audit of Inspektor Gadget. The report says the audit was coordinated by OSTIF, funded by CNCF, and carried out by Shielder, and that patches were available for every reported vulnerability. An audit is useful security information, not a guarantee against operational risk or a replacement for checking current versions and configuration. Read the CNCF audit report.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
