Vulnerabilities, Secrets and Misconfiguration in the Highest-Exposure Docker Hub Images
arXiv SecurityArchived Aug 05, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2608.02669v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Docker Hub is the registry underneath most container deployments, and a flaw in a widely reused base image is inherited by every image built on it. Prior ecosystem-scale measurements each rely on a single detector, leaving the tool-dependence of their counts unquantified, while the studies that do compare scanners use samples of tens to hundreds of images. We present ChimangoScan, a pipeline that crawls the Docker Hub namespace (12,716,568 reposito
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Cryptography and Security
[Submitted on 2 Aug 2026]
Vulnerabilities, Secrets and Misconfiguration in the Highest-Exposure Docker Hub Images
Cristhian Kapelinski, Beatriz Machado, Diego Kreutz
Docker Hub is the registry underneath most container deployments, and a flaw in a widely reused base image is inherited by every image built on it. Prior ecosystem-scale measurements each rely on a single detector, leaving the tool-dependence of their counts unquantified, while the studies that do compare scanners use samples of tens to hundreds of images. We present ChimangoScan, a pipeline that crawls the Docker Hub namespace (12,716,568 repositories, 663.8 billion cumulative pulls), reconstructs the image layer graph (54.4 million IS_BASE_OF edges), ranks images by an exposure score that folds an image's own pull count and those of its entire downstream subtree into one scalar, and scans the 52,895 highest-exposure repositories (84.7% of all recorded pulls) with six independent scanners, yielding 170.4 million findings. Vulnerabilities are near-universal: 96.3% of images carry a known package vulnerability, 93.4% a critical one, and 98.0% at least one CIS Docker Benchmark misconfiguration. The posture a single tool reports is largely an artifact of that tool: of 80.7 million distinct (vulnerability, package) groups, 66.8% are flagged by only one of the three vulnerability scanners and just 2.7% by all three, and the best single scanner recovers 66.9%. TruffleHog flags a secret in 76.9% of images, yet hand-labeling 1,100 random detections finds 99.7% are non-credentials. A single zlib CVE reaches images carrying 47.3% of total corpus exposure and propagates to 1.13 million distinct downstream images, but exposure does not predict how vulnerable an image is. We release the pipeline and the 283 GB dataset.
Comments: 12 pages, 10 figures, 10 tables
Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Operating Systems (cs.OS); Software Engineering (cs.SE)
ACM classes: D.4.6; K.6.5; D.2.8
Cite as: arXiv:2608.02669 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2608.02669v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.02669
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Diego Kreutz [view email]
[v1] Sun, 2 Aug 2026 13:57:28 UTC (433 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.CR
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-08
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.AI
cs.CY
cs.OS
cs.SE
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)