Your platform is running in production. Developers are shipping code. Everything looks fine - until it isn't.
Static security scans catch vulnerabilities before deployment, but they can't see what happens when your workloads actually run. They miss privilege escalations, container escapes, and zero-day exploits that only emerge at runtime. With the average data breach costing $4.88 million, waiting for an incident to reveal these gaps is expensive.
Runtime security monitoring fills this void. It continuously monitors production workloads, detecting threats as they occur. For platform engineers, the challenge is implementing this protection without degrading performance or creating friction for developers.
This blog post shows you how to build runtime security into your platform architecture - making it invisible, always-on, and never blocking.
Explore the Architect Certification
Why runtime security monitoring matters for platform teams
Static analysis tools scan your code and dependencies before deployment. They're essential, but they only see what you build - not how it behaves.
Runtime security monitoring operates in production, watching actual workload behavior. It detects threats that static tools miss: processes spawning unexpected shells, containers accessing sensitive files they shouldn't touch, network connections to suspicious endpoints. These are behavioral anomalies that only appear when code executes in a real environment.
The shift from perimeter-based security to workload-centric protection reflects how modern platforms work. Your applications run in ephemeral containers across distributed infrastructure. Traditional firewalls and network boundaries don't provide the granular visibility you need. Runtime monitoring operates at the kernel level, tracking system calls and network connections regardless of where workloads run.
How runtime security enables developer velocity
Platform engineering aims to reduce cognitive load. Runtime security monitoring supports this goal by shifting security responsibility down into the platform itself.
Developers shouldn't need to become security experts. Your platform should enforce security policies automatically, provide instant feedback when violations occur, and handle threat detection without requiring manual intervention. This "shift down" approach means security operates as a platform capability - invisible to developers but always protecting their workloads.
When runtime security integrates properly with your internal developer platform, it becomes part of the golden path. Developers deploy through standard workflows, and the platform ensures their workloads run securely by default. No additional steps, no security checklists, no friction.
How runtime security monitoring actually works
Runtime security monitoring relies on kernel-level visibility. The most effective approach uses eBPF (extended Berkeley Packet Filter), which runs programs in the Linux kernel without modifying kernel code. eBPF-based tools like Falco attach to kernel events - such as system calls, network activity, and file operations - and analyze them in real time. This provides deep visibility with minimal performance overhead.
Behavioral analysis identifies anomalies by establishing baselines for normal workload activity. When a container suddenly executes shell commands it’s never run before, the system flags it as suspicious.
Real-time event correlation connects individual signals into coherent threat patterns. A single unexpected system call might be benign. A sequence of privilege escalation attempts followed by unauthorized file access and outbound connections indicates an active attack.
Node-level vs. per-application monitoring
You have two architectural options for runtime security monitoring.
Per-application monitoring deploys security agents as sidecars alongside your workloads. These agents collect telemetry locally and forward it to a central analysis platform. This approach provides rich, detailed data but adds operational complexity—you're managing additional containers, handling agent updates, and consuming extra resources on every pod.
Node-level monitoring uses technologies like eBPF to collect security telemetry without installing agents in your workload pods. Tools like Cilium and Falco are typically deployed as a DaemonSet (one pod per node) to monitor kernel-level activity across containers without per-pod sidecars, reducing operational overhead while maintaining comprehensive visibility.
For platform engineering teams, node-level approaches often align better with the goal of reducing developer burden. You implement security monitoring once at the platform level, and it protects workloads automatically without requiring per-application configuration.
Critical threats, runtime security detects
Runtime security monitoring excels at catching threats that bypass static analysis and build-time scanning.
Privilege escalation attempts - Unexpected use of sudo, attempts to modify /etc/passwd, or processes accessing privileged system calls they shouldn't need.
File integrity violations - Unauthorized modifications to critical system files or application binaries in directories like /bin or /usr/bin.
Suspicious network activity - Unexpected outbound connections, communication with malicious IPs, or lateral movement between services that shouldn't interact.
Container escape attempts - Attempts to mount host filesystems, access /proc or /sys directories unexpectedly, or use kernel exploits to break container isolation.
Zero-day exploits - Behavioral monitoring catches these by identifying abnormal activity patterns, even when the specific exploit is unknown.
Best practices and implementation challenges
Runtime security monitoring should operate "invisibly, always on, never blocking." This principle guides implementation decisions and helps you avoid common pitfalls.
Designing invisible security
Your developers shouldn't need to think about runtime security. The platform automatically handles threat detection, policy enforcement, and incident response. This requires careful design:
Start with sensible defaults. Deploy runtime security monitoring across all workloads by default, using baseline rules that catch common threats without generating excessive noise. Developers opt out only in exceptional cases, not as a standard practice.
Provide instant feedback when security events occur, but route it appropriately. Critical threats trigger immediate alerts to your security team. Policy violations appear in deployment logs where developers can see them. Informational events flow to your centralized logging system for analysis and audit trails.
Automate response where possible. If a container violates security policy, your platform can automatically terminate it and alert the owning team. If a workload exhibits suspicious behavior, you can isolate it from the network while investigating. These automated responses contain threats without requiring manual intervention.
Creating effective alert strategies
The biggest operational challenge in runtime security is alert fatigue. Too many false positives and your team starts ignoring alerts. Too few alerts and you miss real threats.
Start with conservative rules that catch high-confidence threats. As you understand your workload patterns better, you can tune rules to detect more subtle anomalies. This progressive approach builds confidence in your alerting system.
Categorize alerts by severity and route them accordingly. Critical threats (privilege escalation, container escapes) trigger immediate pages. Policy violations (unexpected file access, unusual network connections) create tickets for investigation. Informational events (new process executions, configuration changes) flow to logs for analysis.
Use your observability platform to correlate security events with application behavior. A spike in security alerts during a deployment might indicate a misconfiguration rather than an attack. Correlating these events helps you distinguish between genuine threats and operational issues.
Organizational implementation strategies
Runtime security monitoring requires collaboration between platform and security teams. Neither team can implement it effectively alone.
Co-ownership models work best. Platform teams own the runtime security infrastructure - deploying Falco, configuring integrations, maintaining the observability pipeline. Security teams own the policies - defining what constitutes suspicious behavior, setting alert thresholds, and handling incident response.
This division of responsibility ensures that runtime security integrates smoothly with your platform while maintaining the security rigor that compliance requires. Platform engineers understand the operational constraints and developer workflows. Security engineers understand the threat landscape and regulatory requirements.
Join the Architect Certification
Frequently asked questions
How does runtime security monitoring differ from SIEM?
SIEM collects and analyzes logs after events occur. Runtime security monitoring detects threats in real-time at the kernel level, enabling immediate response before damage spreads.
Does eBPF-based monitoring work in all Kubernetes environments?
eBPF requires Linux kernel 4.9 or later. Most modern Kubernetes distributions support it, but verify compatibility with your specific environment and container runtime.
Can runtime security monitoring detect zero-day exploits?
Yes, through behavioral analysis. While it can't identify specific vulnerabilities, it detects the abnormal behavior that exploits cause—such as unexpected process execution or file access patterns.
What's the typical performance overhead of runtime security monitoring?
eBPF-based tools like Falco typically add less than 1% CPU overhead per node, making them suitable for production environments. However, you should measure the actual impact in your specific environment.
How does runtime security integrate with existing DevOps workflows?
Runtime security operates as a platform capability that developers don't need to configure directly. It integrates with your CI/CD pipeline, observability stack, and policy enforcement systems to provide continuous protection without changing developer workflows.
Ready to level up your platform engineering skills? The Platform Engineering Certified Architect course includes hands-on modules on runtime security monitoring, policy-as-code enforcement, and building secure-by-design platforms. We’ll cover Falco deployment, eBPF-based monitoring, and integration with zero-trust architectures - giving you practical experience implementing the patterns discussed in this article.
