Agents need containment, and a sandbox is only half of it. Something still has to say which agent runs there, what it gets, and what it may touch. That is a Kit: an ordinary OCI image, so the answer travels with the agent and means the same thing on any conforming runtime. Today we published the Docker Sandbox Kit Specification v3, open source under Apache 2.0 at docker/sandbox-kit-spec. Here is why I wrote it.

Everything that makes an agent useful is a grant

I run a lot of agents. They write code, run tests, install dependencies, call APIs, and work on infrastructure while I do something else. None of it happens without access, so I grant it one piece at a time: a bind mount, a token with broader scope than the task needs, a firewall rule that was quicker to open than to narrow. Each grant is reasonable on its own. Together they take back the isolation I was relying on, and none needed an exploit. The holes are configuration, added on purpose, usually by me.

I am worse at taking any of it back, and I could not reproduce the grants my setup depends on. No file records them. They live in shell history, dashboards, and my memory. I cannot hand that to a colleague or diff it against last week.

Containers package applications. Sandboxes contain agents.

A container packages applications. It shares the host kernel and uses namespaces and cgroups to give one fixed workload its own view of the filesystem, network, and processes. That is the right tool for software that runs, does its job, and touches only what it was handed.

An agent, however, is a probabilistic actor. It decides what to do next and then does it, to my filesystem, network, credentials, and cloud account. It will install a package that needs root, open a port nobody planned for, and try the next thing when the first is blocked. A container was not built for that: the boundary is the same kernel the actor is probing.

A Docker Sandbox is a microVM with its own kernel, so the boundary sits below anything the model can reach or rewrite. Inside one I can hand an agent root and let it loose, because the damage stops at the sandbox boundary. The sandbox is what lets me run an agent with the safeties off.

But an empty sandbox is not an environment. Something still has to say which agent runs, which tools and MCP servers it gets, which skills and instructions shape it, and exactly what it may touch.

What a Dockerfile cannot say

A Dockerfile answers everything about the software itself: how it is built, what gets packaged, how it starts. It was never standardized; OCI standardized the image it produces and how registries distribute it. What a Dockerfile does not describe is the outside: networks, credentials, volumes, tools, context. That half has lived in docker run flags, a Compose file, a CI config, and someone’s memory. Unversioned, unreviewable. A Kit writes it down with the content.

One image, one digest

If you have used sbx, you have used Kits. This is the third version of the format, and the change that matters is that a Kit is now an ordinary OCI image rather than its own artifact: no media type, no sidecar file, nothing for a registry to learn. The manifest carries the declarations in one annotation, vnd.docker.sandbox.kit.descriptor; the layers carry the content.

A Kit therefore builds with docker buildx build, pulls with docker pull, gets scanned and signed by the tooling you already run, and works in a FROM. Pinning the digest pins content, declarations, and metadata together. The tooling and distribution path are free; the format is something you learn: a grammar, a page per capability type, provides and requires, kind: set.

Two kinds of Kit exist. A workload runs and supplies the root filesystem. A mixin is an overlay: a CLI with its network rule, a credential binding, context for an agent. You launch one workload and any number of mixins.

Authority you can read

Part of the GitHub CLI mixin in the repository:

capabilities:
  - type: com.docker.sandbox/network-policy@2
    config:
      runtime:
        allow:
          - github.com
          - hosts: [api.github.com]
            methods: [GET, HEAD, POST, PATCH, PUT, DELETE]
        deny:
          - hosts: [api.github.com]
            methods: [DELETE]
            paths: [/repos/**]

  - type: com.docker.sandbox/credential@1
    optional: true
    config:
      service: github
      phase: runtime
      apiKey:
        name: GH_TOKEN
        proxyManaged: true
        inject:
          - {domain: api.github.com, header: Authorization, format: "Bearer %s"}

Read it as a permission slip. This Kit asks to reach GitHub and nowhere else, and for most of the API but not deletes under /repos/**, because deny wins. The token that can open a pull request cannot delete the repository. The credential is proxy-managed: a conforming runtime injects the real value into requests to the named domains, and inside the sandbox there is only a sentinel.

Two words carry weight: asks and conforming. A Kit grants itself nothing. Each entry is a request, and the host decides. A conforming runtime, one that implements the behaviour the specification describes, blocks hosts not on the list. Without one, the annotation is inert: an image and no enforcement. Docker Sandboxes is the first conforming runtime.

Everything a Kit needs goes through that one list, typed and versioned. Grants (network rules, credentials, volumes, ports, devices, skills paths) count toward “what may this Kit do”; entries that ask the runtime to act, like a lifecycle hook, do not. A required request the host cannot satisfy refuses the launch, rather than starting an agent with less authority than it declared, or more.

Composition is a function, not a sequence

Container images never solved multiple inheritance: a Dockerfile stage has one FROM. Mixins are overlays ordered by the dependency graph the Kits declare through provides and requires, never by the order you typed the flags, so the same set always composes to the same image.

The resolver is strict on purpose. Every requires is satisfied from inside the set or resolution fails; nothing is fetched to cover a gap. Exactly one workload is allowed. Two Kits providing the same name fail rather than one silently shadowing the other (composing the Claude workload with the Claude mixin is the canonical mistake). Where Kits overlap, declarations reconcile: network rules union, hooks run in dependency order, guidance becomes one document, licenses union. Incompatible requests are an error, not a coin flip.

A kind: set descriptor names other Kits; publishing it runs the same coherence rules at build time and merges them into one ordinary Kit. An incoherent set fails at your build, not at someone else’s launch.

The diff is the review

The Claude Code Kit in the repository declares the hosts it asks to reach, its credential, the volumes that persist between sessions, and its install and startup hooks. When the next version asks for another host or a second credential, that is a change in authority, not a software update, and it shows up in the pull request as added lines a human can refuse.

Review depends on somebody reading the diff, so the specification defines a second gate that does not. Every descriptor reduces to a normalized set of everything the host would have to grant; a runtime that gates updates records that set and compares the next version against it. A version inside what was granted may apply without asking. Any widening stops and asks, and removing a deny rule counts: if a later gh Kit dropped DELETE /repos/**, the runtime holds the upgrade. That is why the declarations had to live in the artifact, not beside it.

Why this is a specification and not a feature

A Kit that stopped meaning anything when run somewhere else would be lock-in, not a trust boundary. So the grammar is normative, every capability type has its own page describing what a conforming runtime must implement, and types version independently (network-policy@1 and @2 both exist today). Two conformance suites ship with it: one judges whether an artifact is a conforming Kit, the other whether a runtime behaves as the pages say. Every normative statement is covered by a check or a written waiver.

Docker maintains the specification today, and it should not stay under a single vendor: a format for deciding what an agent may do is worth less if it belongs to whoever sells you the runtime. Docker Sandboxes will be a first-class implementation, not the only one. If a Kit you want cannot be expressed, or a runtime duty cannot be implemented as stated, open an issue.

Try it

sbx is our sandbox CLI (brew install docker/tap/sbx). From a checkout of the repository:

cd examples
sbx run ./hello --kit ./gh .

Edit a descriptor and only that Kit rebuilds; docker buildx build publishes it to any registry. Docker Cloud Sandboxes runs the same Kits with the same trust model on elastic capacity. The specification, capability pages, and a worked tour are in docker/sandbox-kit-spec.

Not only agents

Agents forced this into the open because the authority they ask for is so large, but ordinary workloads have always arrived with unwritten expectations: the endpoints they call, the credentials they need, the volume that must survive a restart. That knowledge has lived in a Helm chart, a runbook, or a colleague. It is the same gap, less alarming when a web service gets it wrong. This specification is where any software writes down what it needs from the world around it; agents were the case urgent enough to have it built.

Dockerfiles made software reproducible. Kits make authority reproducible.

Docker and CNCF: Making what an agent may do as portable as the agent itself

Ten years ago, the software industry faced a choice. Every vendor could ship its own image format and its own runtime, and developers would have to pick a side. Or the industry could agree on one artifact. The second option won. Docker donated its image format and the Runc runtime to the Linux Foundation, and the Open Container Initiative (OCI) formed around them. Today, a Docker image built anywhere can run anywhere. The format is the backbone of the cloud native ecosystem and a de facto standard.

Now, we see a similar problem forming around agents. There is no shared format for what an agent is allowed to do. We are proposing the same kind of answer: one artifact, built on OCI, governed in the open.

The same problem, for agents

Containers were built for immutable software. The image is the application. If you want to change it, you rebuild it, and it behaves the same way everywhere. That’s why a container image describes how software is built and says nothing about what it may do once it runs. For a web service, that was fine. It got a network and a port, and that was enough.

Agents are mutable by definition. Claude Code and Codex install packages, call APIs, and use credentials on your behalf. They change the environment they run in, and they decide what to do next. So, every team writes its own rules for what an agent may reach: a network rule here, a token there, a volume mount to get a task done. Those rules live in shell history, in dashboards, and in someone’s memory. A few months in, nobody can answer a simple question: what is this agent allowed to do?

Every team answers that on its own today, and every runtime vendor could ship its own way of answering it. That’s the kind of fragmentation OCI was created to prevent.

What we are announcing

Kits are not new. Kits have been part of Docker Sandboxes as the way you package an agent, its tools, and what it may reach into something a team can share. What’s new is the artifact. A Kit is now an ordinary OCI image, and the format that describes it is open.

Today at WeAreDevelopers, we announced the Docker Sandbox Kit Spec, open source under Apache 2.0. A Kit carries three things in one image: the agent, its tools, and a typed list of everything it asks to reach, such as hosts, credentials, and volumes. Because the list is part of the image, pinning the image pins the agent and its requests together.

A Kit is not a new artifact type and not a fork of any OCI specification. It uses an extension point OCI already defines. It builds, pushes, pulls, signs, and scans like any image you run today, because it is one.

Today, we’re bringing the spec to CNCF, under their neutral governance, just like we did when the image format went to OCI.

Why it matters

Adoption is free. Because a Kit is an OCI image, every registry, scanner, and signing tool you already run handles it. There is nothing new to deploy.

The answer travels with the agent. Because the requests are in the image, “what may this agent do” has one answer. A teammate can pull it. A reviewer can diff it. A conforming runtime can enforce it. When a new version asks for more, the change shows up as added lines someone can refuse.

An ecosystem, not a format

Docker has always had an ecosystem-first mindset. The Dockerfile mattered because anyone could write one, any registry could store the result, and any runtime could run it. Kits follow the same approach, and we did not build them alone.

We have worked with AWS, Box, Datadog, Dynatrace, JFrog, NanoClaw, OpenClaw, Palo Alto Networks, Snyk, and more to build Kits for their tools. Cloud platforms, observability, security, artifact management, content, and agent frameworks are all represented. The Kits we unveiled during the opening keynote at WeAreDevelopers today are the product of all that work, and they are the first of many.

MCP gave agents a standard way to talk to a tool. Kits give the ecosystem a standard way to publish the whole arrangement: the agent, its tools, and what it asks to reach, in one image anyone can pull. That’s what turns a format into a supply chain. For example, a database vendor can publish a Kit that connects any agent to its service with the scope it recommends.An agent maker publishes its own Kit, so the request list comes from the people who built the agent. A platform team publishes one for the company, and every engineer starts from the same place.

None of that happens if the format belongs to one vendor. A standard for deciding what an agent may do is worth a good deal less if it belongs to whoever sells you the runtime. Docker Sandboxes is the first runtime that enforces it. It should not be the only one, and under CNCF governance, it will not be.

Containers made software portable. Kits make authority portable: the set of things you deliberately hand over to an agent travels with the agent, in the same image, and means the same thing wherever a conforming runtime opens it.

Build a Kit

If you make a tool agents use, publish a Kit for it. If you run agents, start from one and share it with your team. The specification, the capability pages, and a worked tour of a real Kit are at docker/sandbox-kit-spec. If there is a Kit you cannot express, or a rule a runtime cannot implement, open an issue. Every Kit published and every issue filed is how a standard gets built.

As teams put AI agents to work, they need to move quickly without losing control of what they deploy. They’re combining models, tools, and infrastructure from across a fast-changing ecosystem. Making those pieces work together and keeping them accountable as the stack evolves is becoming a core part of building AI applications.

Docker’s approach to this challenge is providing a trusted, common foundation for containment, curation, and control of agent workloads at its core, while pairing those capabilities with an open ecosystem of partners and tools.

That ecosystem spans model providers, MCP tools and gateways, enterprise applications, data and memory platforms, identity, security, observability, and code quality. It also includes the cloud providers, systems integrators, and channel partners that help organizations bring these capabilities into production. 

Integrating this ecosystem gives teams the freedom to choose the models, platforms, and clouds that fit their needs while maintaining a consistent foundation for governance. Developers remain in the lead: choosing what agents can access, directing their work, and verifying the outcomes. The goal is to give them the tools and guardrails to build with confidence as models, frameworks, and requirements change.

At WeAreDevelopers World Congress North America, September 23–25 in San Jose, partners and customers are bringing that ecosystem to life at the Docker Pavilion. Customer sessions will show how these technologies come together in practice, from repeatable AI deployments at the edge to simpler development with payment APIs. Lightning talks and demos will explore enterprise knowledge and agent memory, collaboration between agents, security and incident response, and verification of generated code. 

Here’s who you can meet and what they’ll be sharing.

Customer talks — September 24

Customers bring another essential perspective: how these technologies come together in the systems they build.

• Spectro Cloud: In “Repeatable Agentic Workloads on Palette,” Colton Shaw will demonstrate how a versioned cluster profile brings together hardened images, local inference, and agent workloads for repeatable edge deployments, including environments without a cloud connection. 12:15–12:30 PM.
• Joint panel “From TokenMaxxing to True AI Ownership,” hosted by Per Krogslund from Docker and executives from Spectro Cloud and J.P. Morgan Payments, for a conversation about moving beyond token consumption toward ownership of how AI is deployed, governed, and put to work. September 24, 3:45 PM.
• J.P. Morgan Payments: In “Insert Coin: docker compose up with J.P. Morgan Payments,” Alan Torrance will show how developers can run Unicorn Finance with one command and no API keys. The open source example brings a client, mock server, and the real OpenAPI specifications behind J.P. Morgan’s Payments APIs together in two containers. 4:30–4:45 PM.

Partner talks — Sep 24, 2026

• Palo Alto Networks: Investigate agent activity through searchable audit records and live detections in Cortex XSIAM, with Cameron Hyde showing the integration in action. 11:15–11:30 AM.
• Datadog: Follow an agent security incident from detection to investigation and response, with Amrita Lakhanpal connecting AI Guard, service context, and incident management. 12:45–1:00 PM.
• ClickHouse: Reduce unnecessary components in your database’s base image. Zoe Steinkamp will walk through running ClickHouse on Docker Hardened Images. 1:15–1:30 PM.
• Prediction Guard: Explore how execution isolation and controls over model calls work together, with Sharan Shirodkar testing both against a poisoned tool output. 3:15–3:30 PM.
• Snyk: See the prompts, file activity, and generated code behind an agent’s work, with Javier Garza demonstrating the Evo Agentic Development Security Sandbox Kit. 5:00–5:15 PM.

Partner talks — Sep 25, 2026

• GitGuardian: Put controls around the moments an agent reads files, edits code, or runs commands, with Dwayne McDaniel showing how hooks can help protect secrets. 9:00–9:15 AM.
• Mend.io: Add runtime guardrails to detect malicious inputs, prevent unsafe actions, and record agent activity, with Gary M Segal demonstrating the approach. 9:30–9:45 AM.
• Merge: Give agents access to an integration catalog while keeping third-party credentials outside the sandbox, with Gil Feig explaining how the pieces connect. 9:45–10:00 AM.
• BAND: Explore how separately sandboxed coding agents can exchange tasks, messages, and artifacts, with Vlad Luzin demonstrating collaboration through Jam. 12:15–12:30 PM.
• Chainloop: Give reviewers evidence of what an agent actually did. Daniel Liszka will demonstrate signed session records and policy checks on a pull request. 1:15–1:30 PM.
• Box: Turn enterprise documents into deliverables that people can review, with Carter Rabasa demonstrating governed document access, evidence checks, and isolated code execution. 2:30–2:45 PM.
• SurrealDB: Build agents with memory you can inspect over time, with Chiru Boggavarapu showing how to trace what an agent knew and when. 2:45–3:00 PM.
• Cognee: Give agents temporary access to company knowledge and remove it when the task is finished, with Vasilije Markovic demonstrating a practical architecture. 3:45–4:00 PM.
• Sonar: Guide and verify agent-generated changes using Sonar Vortex and the SonarQube CLI, with Manish Kapur demonstrating the workflow inside a sandbox. 4:45–5:00 PM.

These sessions bring together the people building the tools and the teams putting them to work. It’s an opportunity to compare approaches, ask questions, and see how the ecosystem can help you tackle your next engineering challenge.

Come visit us at WeAreDevelopers. Meet our partners, customers, and speakers, catch a lightning talk, and see their technologies in action. Plan your visit to San Jose.

Everyone has been talking about the OpenAI/Hugging Face incident, and I was initially skeptical that Docker had much to add. After several weeks of customer conversations, I think we do. The useful lesson is not that an AI agent escaped a sandbox. It is what 17,600 actions expose about security systems designed for human tempo.

Hugging Face reconstructed approximately 17,600 attacker actions across a four-and-a-half-day campaign in July, including roughly two and a half days inside its infrastructure.

Put thirty seconds of human review against each action and you get 147 hours of work. Hugging Face grouped those actions into roughly 6,280 clusters; review only those and you still get more than 52 hours. Either way, manual approval and ordinary alert triage were never plausible primary controls for this workload.

This was not a fundamentally new category of attack. If you have any background in incident response, the sequence is familiar: exploit a reachable service, obtain code execution, collect credentials, escalate privilege, and cross the next trust boundary.

What was different was the rate, persistence, and ability to carry authority and state across short-lived environments. The agent could fail, rebuild its tooling, recover its communications channels, and continue from another environment without starting the campaign over. The useful mental model is a capable attacker fused with a fuzzer: it can reason about each result and keep probing without fatigue. That is the AI part of the story.

This is not a commentary on model alignment, and I will offer no opinion here on which model or agent framework you or your organization should use. The security question is familiar: what authority should be given to a workload that can execute code, hold credentials, reach the network, and continue testing paths long after a human would have stopped?

What happened

OpenAI was running internal cyber-capability evaluations against a benchmark called ExploitGym, which tasks agents with finding and exploiting vulnerabilities. The evaluation used reduced refusal behavior and none of the production-grade classifiers a deployed model would normally have.

The agents did not have direct internet access. They were allowed to install packages through an internally hosted package-registry cache. The agents found a previously unknown vulnerability in that permitted service and used it to reach the open internet.

The permitted service was the escape path. That’s the important point in the incident.

From there, the agents escalated privilege inside OpenAI’s research environment, reached a user-hosted CyberGym-style code-execution harness running on an external sandbox, and obtained root inside that harness. The sandbox platform itself was not compromised. Having apparently worked out that Hugging Face might host the benchmark’s reference answers, the agents went after Hugging Face directly, assessing that cheating was the fastest path to a passing score.

Hugging Face’s reconstruction documents local-file disclosure, code execution through a template engine, cloud metadata access, Kubernetes privilege escalation, exposure of a production secret containing 136 keys, access to the corporate network through a stolen credential, and limited write access to source control. It found no evidence that public models, datasets, packages, or released software were modified, and the customer content accessed was limited to a handful of benchmark-related datasets. That is a good outcome relative to what was possible. It is not evidence that the attack path was harmless.

The individual weaknesses were familiar: an unsafe processing path, accessible cloud metadata, broad privileges, long-lived credentials, and a shared administrative identity. A capable human attacker could have chained them, too. The difference was the volume of paths tested, the speed with which a failed path was replaced, and the amount of evidence defenders had to interpret while the campaign continued.

If you want the full blow-by-blow, Hugging Face published a detailed technical writeup and interactive replay. Both are worth reading.

The controls this requires

That arithmetic, not the novelty of the attack, is what changes the operating model. A human cannot sit in the control loop for thousands of actions at machine speed.

There are also two related threat models to account for.

In the first, the agent discovers and exploits a path on its own, as the agents did in this incident. In the second, an external party redirects the agent through a poisoned tool, compromised dependency, malicious document, prompt injection, or attacker-controlled data. In that case, the agent becomes the attack vector.

The same authority is dangerous in either case. The controls therefore have to govern what enters the environment, which capabilities the agent receives, and what happens when its behavior leaves the expected boundary.

The point is not to put human approval in front of every action. That defeats much of the value of using agents and eventually produces approval fatigue. Routine and reversible actions should have very little friction. More sensitive, external, destructive, or unusual actions should receive stronger scrutiny.

Review and sanitization still matter, particularly for packages, tools, and paths where external data could become a command. But sanitization alone is not a reliable answer to prompt injection. Natural-language content is too ambiguous for us to assume we can always identify and remove the malicious part. The stronger boundary is architectural: untrusted content must not be able to grant itself authority, change policy, or create capabilities the agent did not already have.

Done well, governance is not what limits agent autonomy. It is what makes it possible to safely give agents more of it.

Where Docker fits today, and where we do not

We are proud to be founding authors of the Agent Baseline. We worked with other industry experts to distill the problem into six outcomes: Discover, Constrain, Authorize, Observe, Validate, and Respond.

If Docker Sandboxes sit in one specific bucket, it’s “Constrain,” but really, we believe they’re foundational, and where you would instrument or implement all six. They give each agent a dedicated microVM and enforceable boundaries around local compute, filesystem access, and network reach, as well as providing the base (and thus ground truth) layer to observe. That is a real and useful layer.

Docker AI Governance addresses parts of Authorize and Observe by giving organizations a centralized way to define and enforce controls around agent environments, including network and filesystem policies and access to MCP servers and tools.

Together, Sandboxes and AI Governance provide a meaningful part of the answer today: a hardened execution environment and centralized policy enforcement around it. They do not repair a vulnerable service the agent is authorized to contact, narrow a credential issued by another system, or replace the customer’s own security architecture. No vendor, Docker included, can claim its technology would have made this particular incident a non-event.

But a deterministic enforcement boundary is still necessary. It gives an organization one place to apply least capability and least privilege, and one place to observe what the agent was actually allowed to do. If an agent is using a package registry as an egress proxy rather than a package registry, that’s the kind of divergence the telemetry needs to help surface, especially when viewed across a sequence of requests rather than one request at a time.

The broader problem remains difficult. The useful unit of observation is not always one tool call. It may be a burst of activity, a target, a protocol, a credential, or a pattern visible only across systems. A package request can be normal. Repeatedly probing the service behind it, discovering credentials, and using them to reach another system should change the assessment.

That’s the agent-security challenge beyond basic containment. We need to constrain authority, but also observe activity at the right granularity, recognize when it deserves more scrutiny, and respond at the same tempo as the agent. For all of us, Docker included, there is still substantial work ahead across observation, validation, and response.

The operational tradeoff

Security, capability, and autonomy all matter, and they will always be in tension. Said differently, none of this is free.

Short-lived credentials expire during long-running tasks. Narrow egress policies break legitimate package installation. Admission controls reject tools developers assumed they could run. Cross-system detection costs money and produces false positives. A write approval inserted at the wrong point can eliminate most of the productivity the agent was supposed to provide.

Teams will be tempted to loosen each control until the agent works again. That is understandable. The failure mode created by a strict policy is immediate and visible; the failure mode created by excessive authority remains invisible until an incident.

The answer is not to remove the controls or ask a human to approve everything. It is to make friction proportional to consequence, test the failure modes, measure the operational cost, and weigh it against the risk and potential blast radius.

How I work

I use agents every day, and I assume that a sufficiently capable agent will eventually try something I did not anticipate (perhaps on a daily basis…).

For the most part, I do not run one general-purpose agent with access to everything. I use task-focused agents, each packaged as a separate kit, built on free Docker Hardened Images and run in Docker Sandboxes.

Each kit starts with a specific job, then receives only the software, network access, files, credentials, and external capabilities required for that job.

In most cases, the agent has very few restrictions inside its sandbox. That is intentional. What matters is that god mode inside the sandbox does not become god mode over my laptop, my credentials, or every service I can reach.

I do a lot of desk research. Those agents can access the open internet. They’re not useful if they can’t. But their image has no compilers, package manager, general-purpose network debugging tools, or development toolchain, and it runs with deliberately limited system permissions. They can retrieve and analyze public information, but have very little machinery with which to turn something they encounter into an exploit or act on another system. They have no reason to hold my source code or production credentials.

My production coding agent has a much richer environment. It runs pi, can use multiple models, compile code, run tests, and use the tools required for real engineering work. Its network access is restricted to an explicit allow list of services I use, including Docker, GitHub, Snowflake, and Cloudflare. It does not receive arbitrary internet access or arbitrary tools simply because a coding task occasionally needs the network.

My home kit can interact with an Arduino, but it does not receive direct access to the host or the device. A host-side MCP server brokers the allowed operations. The agent can request a defined Arduino capability through that interface; it cannot turn that permission into general access to every device connected to the machine.

My development kit is where I experiment. It runs with balanced network access, but no ambient host secrets and no unrestricted access to host files. When it needs Google Workspace, Snowflake, or another host service, host-side daemons broker those calls. The agent sees the capability I have chosen to expose, not the underlying credential or the rest of the service. Those brokers can enforce which operations are allowed and which are blocked.

These are deliberately different environments. The research agent would be poor at production coding. The coding agent cannot reach every site the research agent can. The home agent cannot turn an Arduino operation into arbitrary host access. The development agent can query a service without possessing the credential that authorizes the query.

That constraint is the feature.

Conclusion: Security at agent speed

The OpenAI/Hugging Face incident was not the failure of a single boundary. It was a chain of reasonable-seeming permissions and familiar weaknesses that became something very different when an agent could test thousands of paths, preserve state across runs, and carry authority from one system into the next.

We will not anticipate every vulnerability an agent might find or every way it might combine the access we give it. The architecture cannot depend on perfect agent behavior, perfect software, or a human noticing every dangerous action in time.

So, the starting point is still least capability and least privilege: give an agent the narrowest interface, credentials, tools, and network access its task requires. Put those controls at a deterministic enforcement boundary. Make the resulting activity observable, not only as isolated requests, but as sequences and patterns across systems. When the behavior leaves the expected envelope, containment has to happen at agent speed.

Docker Sandboxes and Docker AI Governance provide important parts of that architecture today: hardened execution boundaries and centrally enforced policy around them. They do not secure every service an agent is permitted to contact, and they do not eliminate the need for an organization to decide what authority each agent should have. The broader work across Discover, Constrain, Authorize, Observe, Validate, and Respond is why we helped create the Agent Baseline in the first place.

The goal is not to build an agent that never tries the wrong thing. The goal is to build a system where trying the wrong thing does not give it the keys to everything else.

A new report from Omdia focuses on security issues in the software supply chain, how organizations are responding, and where the biggest gaps remain 

In the heat map of cybersecurity vulnerabilities today, among the most intense hot spots is the software supply chain. In fact, it was the shift of the modern attack surface away from isolated systems to the software supply chain that connects them—and Docker’s role in safeguarding that interconnected reality—that first drew me to Docker.

So when Omdia recently released a report, with Docker among its sponsors, that laid out in detail the extent to which the software supply chain is under siege, I wanted to share some highlights.

Key data points

Here are some data points that caught my attention:

• Over three-fourths of organizations experienced a software supply chain incident in the preceding 12 months.
• AI tech was the top-ranked supply chain risk (40%), ahead of third-party and open-source code (39%), and software dependencies (38%). 
• Nearly half (45%) of orgs do not feel they have robust software supply chain security, compared to 55% who do.
• More than half of orgs (51%) rate secure containers as very effective in securing third-party and open-source code components.
• Shifting security left so that developers can secure their code is a high priority for 98% of organizations—and for 32% of those, it’s their top application security priority.

Third-party code and AI usage expand attack surface

A key finding was that increasing usage of third-party code and AI adoption pose security risks that organizations need to address.

Building applications using third-party libraries, open source dependencies, and AI-generated code saves developers a ton of time, so it’s no surprise this trend is on the rise. But it’s code they didn’t write, and as these time-saving inputs keep growing, so do the attack surfaces they expose.

• 77% of organizations reported experiencing a software supply chain incident in the 12 months prior to the survey (carried out in February 2026). 
• Notably, the most common attacks (38%) involved exploits that took advantage of known vulnerabilities in third-party software.

Source: Omdia Research Report, Securing the Software Supply Chain: Strategic Approaches to Support Scaling Development with AI Adoption, April 2026

Third-party code usage trending upward

Third-party code usage, including open-source software, isn’t going away. In fact, it’s gaining momentum.

• 38% of organizations report that more than half of their total software code comes from third-party sources—expected to jump to 58% of organizations in 12 months. 
• Similarly, 31% of orgs report more than half of their code is comprised of OSS—expected to jump to 51% of orgs in 12 months.

The report found that OSS is vital to developers and must be supported, and that orgs are either confident (50%) or completely confident (31%) that their developers are only using secure OSS.

AI tops security concerns

It should come as no surprise that, as devs increasingly use AI tech to develop software, AI tops the list of concerns around software supply chain risks (40%), ahead of third-party code (39%) and software dependencies (38%).

In the rapidly evolving threat landscape, new types of cyber attacks are emerging that are very different from CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures). Take the Shai-Hulud campaign pioneered by TeamPCP, which automates and scales software supply chain attacks using stolen credentials to weaponize well-known packages and inject infostealers deep into the ci/stack or developer laptops.

Using third-party software including OSS is problematic for orgs on multiple fronts. The most common challenges are around vulnerability management.

• Orgs worry about vulnerability remediation (39%) and/or identifying vulnerabilities in the code (36%). 
• And, because AI tools often pull from third-party and OSS code, 35% worry about AI increasing or generating vulnerable code.

Current solutions often fall short

There appears to be a fair degree of awareness around the need to secure the software supply chain. While many orgs are looking to bolster their software supply chain security, nearly half (45%) do not feel they have robust security in this area, compared to 55% who do. 

At the risk of tooting our own horn, secure container services or libraries of hardened container images was the highest-rated tool for being “very effective” in securing third-party and OSS code components. In fact, out of 11 security tool categories, it was the only one rated as very effective by a majority of organizations (51%).

SBOMs play key role in boosting security

Another key finding was that effective inventory and SBOM (software bill of materials) tools can lead to measurably better security outcomes. 

SBOMs are essential because they eliminate structural blindness, providing transparency into the hundreds of third-party components that form the “ingredients” of a modern application. They are even more effective when paired with a VEX statement (Vulnerability Exploitability eXchange), which tells customers whether flagged vulnerabilities pose a risk or not—potentially saving security teams thousands of hours spent chasing “ghost” vulnerabilities.

According to the report, SBOMs help orgs manage software supply chain risk in a range of ways, including more efficient vulnerability mitigation (73%), implementing security controls and processes to mitigate risk (72%), and helping meet compliance regulations (68%).

However, among organizations that generate an SBOM as part of their application development processes, less than half (42%) do so as a mandatory part of the process for all applications. More than half (55%) generate SBOMs on a case-by-case basis.

Producing SBOMs and understanding code composition ranked fourth among challenges orgs face with using third-party software including OSS.

Action needed—fast

The report underscores the need for preventative measures and rapid response in the face of a quickly evolving threat landscape. Among the impacts of software supply chain incidents are the following:

• Nearly half of orgs (46%) faced unauthorized access to applications and data.
• More than one-third had SLAs impacted by remediation steps (37%) and/or experienced stolen developer credentials, secrets, or keys (35%). 
• Organizations also suffered loss of data, introduction of malware and ransomware, and fines for noncompliance.

These impacts underscore the need to mitigate risk as early as possible in the development lifecycle—ideally catching and remediating issues before applications are deployed. 

Investment plans and shifting security left

When asked about their spending plans in the face of these risks, orgs responded as follows:

• Nearly two-thirds (62%) expect to make significant investments in software supply chain security. 
• 37% anticipate making more modest investments. 

A final key finding was that investment plans prioritizing AI require collaboration across teams. That’s largely because the job of securing the software supply chain increasingly falls to those on the front line: developers.

In fact, shifting security left so that developers can secure their code is a high priority for 98% of organizations—and for 32% of those, it’s their top application security priority.

The need to support development 

One of the more resonant issues surfaced in the report was the need to support developers on the front lines. Despite the support for shifting security left to eliminate the security team as a bottleneck for remediating security issues, nearly half (45%) of security teams have only moderate or less influence over security products and processes for developers.

And while the majority of respondents believe their developers are mostly (38%) or completely (45%) comfortable taking on security responsibilities, orgs whose developers are less comfortable need to remove as much friction as possible from the process—for example, by making sure security tasks are not disruptive to the development process, and that security tools roll out consistently across development teams and work within development workflows.

The software supply chain isn’t getting simpler, and neither are the threats targeting it. If you’re evaluating how your organization can better secure third-party code, AI-generated code, and open source dependencies, the full Omdia report offers a deeper look at the trends, data, and practical recommendations shaping software supply chain security. Download the report to see where your organization stands and where to focus next.

Over the past few months, I’ve noticed something unmistakable in my conversations with customers. We’re no longer talking about what AI agents are capable of and whether they can transform the way we build software. We know the answer. They can. They already are. 

The conversations I’m having now instead revolve around a much more sensitive, much more nuanced question: Can we trust these systems? Can we safely place them at the center of our business? That’s the question that’s already defining the next chapter of Agentic AI. 

The world has been promised a paradigm-changing productivity boost from AI. For that to happen, we as technology leaders must empower customers with the solutions they need to build and maintain deterministic control over what agents can and can’t do. Developers and businesses alike need to have confidence that AI agents will behave predictably, operate within well-defined boundaries, and remain secure regardless of how quickly the underlying technology evolves. 

Trust, not intelligence, will determine what’s truly possible in the agentic era. Intelligence comes from models. Trust comes from the runtime, identity, governance, and security surrounding them. That’s why we’re proud to join the Open Secure AI Alliance and why we’re grateful for NVIDIA’s leadership in bringing together organizations committed to solving this challenge. No single company can take on the task of building this trust alone. Security, safety, and governance have to be built through an open ecosystem that shares responsibility for moving the industry forward.

Speaking of open ecosystems, at Docker, we’ve always believed developers do their best work when they have the freedom to choose. That’s how we got to where we are today. It’s how we reshaped the container ecosystem and earned the trust of more than 20M developers worldwide. And it’s how we’re approaching the agentic era as well. We believe the true power of agentic AI can only be harnessed when customers can seamlessly route between open-weight and frontier models.  

But this isn’t just what we believe; it’s what our customers are telling us they want. It’s what they’re telling us they need, today. Almost every customer I talk to has already made open-weight models a core part of their strategy. They need the ability to select the right model for the right task without having to rethink their architecture, rewrite their applications, or compromise on governance, safety, and security every time they make a different choice.

In other words, they need to be able to trust. Building that trust will require all of us. As AI agents become part of every software stack, trust has to extend beyond the model to the environments where agents execute. Docker is proud to help build that foundation alongside NVIDIA and the other members of the Open Secure AI Alliance.

What does it take to secure AI agents without slowing developers down? A recent panel explored the answer 

I recently joined Zach Lloyd, founder and CEO of Warp; Gavriel Cohen, co-founder and CEO of NanoCo and creator of NanoClaw; and moderator Moriah Hara, founder of a community of more than 3,000 CISOs and a three-time Fortune 500 CISO, for a discussion on one of the biggest challenges facing enterprise security teams today: how to safely unlock the productivity of agentic AI.

The rapid rise of agentic AI in the enterprise is putting CISOs in a tough spot. On one hand, business leaders are clamoring to run with the new technology, which promises a productivity revolution like no other. On the other, setting AI agents loose without rigorous guardrails creates severe vulnerabilities. 

Moriah put the dilemma facing CISOs like this: “The business wants AI agents everywhere, developers are already using them, sometimes without approval, oftentimes without security.
…CISOs are left in this uncomfortable middle where we’re tolerating some tools, we’re praying that nothing breaks, we’re buying some time until we can get some governance beyond policy in place to have better visibility.”

The panel explored the role of the CISO in balancing this tension between productivity and security. Here are some highlights.

Isolate, control, observe

They came at it from different angles, but the panelists agreed on one imperative: running AI agents safely requires an isolated environment with trusted control boundaries. For Zach, Warp’s Oz platform provides that isolation. It’s a cloud agent infrastructure for secure and automated deployment of coding agents that allows centralized management, access controls, and visibility into what agents are doing across the organization.

Zach said you can “literally pull up the Oz web app and see what every agent across your company is doing at all times—which is a way better situation than the world we’re in right now, where someone on your marketing team is running Cloud Code, someone on your sales team is running Codex, and you just have no idea what’s going on, what tools they’re installing.”

NanoClaw—a personal AI agent

At Docker, our answer to the challenge of running AI agents safely is to run them in disposable, isolated, local sandboxes. Docker Sandboxes give agents the freedom and autonomy they need to do their best work, safely. Call it YOLO mode with guardrails. As Moriah noted in our discussion, agentic speed should be encouraged— “it’s the ungoverned speed that is the problem.” When agents are allowed to run fast without running wild, speed and safety are no longer a tradeoff. 

Of note here: In March, we announced the integration of NanoClaw with Docker Sandboxes to deliver secure-by-design agent execution. The integration allows every NanoClaw agent to run inside a disposable, MicroVM-based Docker Sandbox that enforces strong operating system-level isolation. The stack takes advantage of NanoClaw’s minimal attack surface and fully auditable open-source codebase to meet enterprise security standards. 

Laptops as the new prod

A key focus of the discussion was where to run agents safely. With vibe coding exploding, and agents and Claws (a new class of agents) already in production, the laptop today is the most powerful node in the enterprise. It’s also the most exposed. As a colleague of mine recently put it, laptop and agent environments are the new prod, and they need to be governed like prod.

Zach stressed the need to get agents off people’s laptops and desktops and into a controlled, cloud-based environment where CISOs can see what every agent across the company is doing at all times.

Portability—from laptop to cloud

My position is that, if you run agents in a sandbox, it doesn’t matter where the box sits. It could sit on a marketing or finance person’s laptop, or on a DevOps engineer or cloud admin’s machine. As long as the trust boundary is established and you know what’s getting piped in and out of it, you’re locked and loaded for rapid prototyping, experimentation, and innovation.

By the way, this view syncs with Docker’s vision, which has always been about portability. Our vision was never everything is local. We start in the local environment, then lift off into distributed environments, Kubernetes clusters, public clouds, whatever. It’s the same with agents. Eventually they’ll lift off, be decoupled from human operators, and be able to run fully autonomously wherever needed—always in the same portable environment.

When agents build the supply chain

The supply chain today is a revolving door for opportunistic attackers like TeamPCP and ShinyHunters who exploit transient dependencies and other vulnerabilities, often needing only a short window of time to filch credentials and information.

How are CISOs to combat these risks when AI agents themselves are pulling base images, choosing dependencies, and assembling code—autonomously and without human oversight? After all, in an autonomous supply chain, traditional methods of scanning and patching after building are no longer feasible. 

Keeping humans in the loop

The panelists shared several best practices. Zach urged keeping humans in the loop for picking clean, secure dependencies, especially upstream libraries, and setting up blessed images for agents to choose from. Gavriel recommended setting a minimum release age of seven days for images and minimizing dependencies—even safe ones.

A training-wheels approach

Gavriel also suggested a training-wheels approach to experimenting with agents, starting out using unpermissioned data to build skills and avoid sensitive data issues. “Unlocking the value today is important,” he said, “but even more important is having people build the skills of working with agents, because what’s going to be coming in the coming months and years is going to totally exceed anything that we have today. So, it’s really about building the muscle memory, building the skills.”

Layer security to limit the blast radius

My take? Opportunistic attackers are simply exploiting an ecosystem that’s inherently flawed and broken and that unfortunately won’t get fixed within the next six to 12 months. Until then, developers should assume these attacks will continue and prepare for them by layering security to limit the blast radius. That means reducing privilege, reducing third-party access to their environment, and using immutable tags, digests, and SBOMs (Software Bill of Materials) to lock manifests and enable rapid detection of poisoned images. And, yes, outsourcing the risk to a trusted build environment like Docker that provides clean, hardened images so you’re starting from a clean foundation. 

MCP—the new shadow IT?

The panelists rounded out the discussion with a focus on the security implications of using MCP in developer environments. MCP (Model Context Protocol) is a standard that allows LLMs to access external data and use tools, potentially making AI more powerful and reliable.

The consensus was that centralized, secure governance is crucial for productivity and risk management. Gavriel stressed the importance of proper version control, credential management, and a “golden repository” of verified tools. Zach advocated for centralized management to avoid individual tool dependencies and ensure minimal access. 

Making it safe and easy to run MCP servers

And Docker? About a year ago, we introduced an open source MCP Gateway that serves as a chokepoint between agents and external tools. Routing every tool call through this enforcement point, where it can be authenticated, authorized, and logged before it reaches the external system, enables a wide range of agents to access trusted catalogs of MCP servers. While it’s not clear to me how long MCPs will remain useful, given the exponential speed with which AI is evolving, Docker MCP Gateway solves an important challenge today. Like Docker Sandboxes, it makes enforcement strict instead of advisory.

A once-in-a-generation opportunity—and challenge

Enabling dev environments to take advantage of agentic AI is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and CISOs are accountable for making sure the rush to do so doesn’t devolve into the Wild West.

Moriah closed the panel with a provocative thought: “Six months from now, enterprises are all going to be running agents at scale. The one key success factor will be whether governance was present from day one or got bolted on after the first major incident.”

In the choose-your-own-adventure reality of agentic AI today, what kind of security leader will you be? 

Agents have moved from demos to daily work faster than almost anyone planned for. In our State of Agentic AI report, 60% of organizations already run AI agents in production, and yet 40% name security and compliance as the number-one thing holding them back from scaling further. That gap, between what teams have already shipped and what they can safely operate, is the real story of AI agents right now.

But what is an AI agent, and why does the term suddenly stretch from a coding assistant to an autonomous research system? The short version is that an agent doesn’t just respond, it acts: give it a goal and it’ll plan the steps, call tools, check the results, and adjust, usually without stopping to ask. That’s what separates an agent from the generative AI it’s built on, and it’s why where an agent runs matters as much as which model sits behind it.

What is an AI agent?

Strip away the hype and an AI agent is software that takes a goal, decides how to reach it, and acts through tools to get there, then uses what it learns to choose its next move. The model supplies the reasoning, the tools give it hands, and the environment is where its actions actually happen. Put those three together and you get a system that can work through a task instead of just describing one.

That’s the difference between an agent and the chatbot experience most people started with. A chatbot answers the question in front of it. An agent takes an objective and works the problem: it breaks the goal into steps, decides which tool fits each step, runs it, reads the outcome, and keeps going until the goal is met or it gets stuck. A coding agent asked to fix a failing test might read the codebase, edit a file, install a dependency, run the suite, and open a pull request, all from one instruction. 

Three properties make that possible:

• Autonomy lets it decide the next action without waiting for approval at each step.
• Tool use lets it reach beyond text to run code, query APIs, and change files.
• Memory lets it carry context across steps, so later decisions build on earlier ones.

Remove any one of them and you’re back to a smarter chatbot rather than an agent.

How do AI agents work?

Under the hood, an agent runs a loop. It takes in the current state of its task, reasons about what to do next, acts through a tool, observes what changed, and feeds that back into the next round of reasoning. The loop repeats until the goal is reached or a stopping condition kicks in.

In one pass of the loop, the agent perceives first, gathering context like the goal, relevant memory, and the results of whatever it did last. In the reason step, the model plans the next action and picks a tool. In the act step, it invokes that tool, a shell command, an API call, a database query. In the observe step, it reads the result, including errors. Then it adapts, updating its plan based on what happened, because a failed test isn’t a dead end for an agent, just new input for the next loop.

The parts that make it run

Most agent frameworks assemble the same core pieces, even when they name them differently.

What are AI agents used for?

Here are a few common examples of AI agents: 

• Coding agents read a repository, write and refactor code, run tests, and open pull requests.
• Support agents triage tickets, pull answers from internal docs, and take action in connected systems.
• Data agents query multiple sources, reconcile the results, and write a summary.
• Operations agents watch infrastructure, investigate alerts, and run routine fixes.

What ties these together is the shape of the work. If a task can be described as a goal plus a handful of tools plus a definition of done, an agent can usually attempt it. That’s also why agents are showing up in so many roadmaps at once. 

Agents vs. chatbots, vs. generative AI

Agents, chatbots, and GenAI often get used interchangeably, which muddies the water. Generative AI produces content in response to a prompt. A chatbot wraps that in a conversation. An agent adds autonomy and tools on top, so it can act on the world rather than just describe it. The clearest way to see it is side by side.

If you want a deeper comparison between generative and agentic systems, we cover it in GenAI vs. agentic AI. But in essence, the moment a system can take actions on its own, you’re no longer just evaluating output quality. You’re also deciding what that system is allowed to touch.

How AI agents are changing software development

An agent is only as safe as the environment it runs in and the access it’s granted. While a chatbot that hallucinates gives you a wrong answer. An agent that goes wrong can delete files, leak secrets, or push a broken change. The autonomy that makes agents productive is the same autonomy that widens the blast radius when something misfires.

This is why experienced teams treat agents as an infrastructure decision, not just a model choice. The interesting engineering questions are about containment: where does the agent execute, which tools can it call for this specific task, whose credentials does it use, and how do you see what it did afterward. Get those right and you can let an agent run without approving each step.

Common misconceptions about AI agents

A few beliefs cause most of the confusion.

• “More autonomy is always better.” Not quite. Autonomy is a dial, not a switch. More of it means more speed and a larger blast radius at the same time.
• “Agent security is the model’s job.” The model can’t contain itself. Real safety comes from the infrastructure around it, which is the whole point of securing AI agents at the isolation and access layers.
• “Governance is only for big enterprises.” Even a solo developer benefits from basic guardrails. As soon as more than one person runs agents, you need shared rules, which is where AI governance starts to earn its keep.

How to start building and running agents safely

You don’t need a platform team to begin, just a few deliberate choices. Pick a harness that matches your task rather than the one with the loudest launch. Connect only the tools the agent needs for the job in front of it, not every tool it might ever want. And decide where it runs before you hand it real access.

That last choice does the most work. Running an agent inside an isolated, disposable environment gives it a real place to work, install packages, edit files, run services, while keeping it away from your host, your credentials, and your other projects. If something goes wrong, you throw the environment away and start a new one. This is the same reasoning behind sandbox security and the microVM architecture that makes strong isolation practical without slowing the agent down. Permission prompts feel like control, but they mostly train you to click allow. A boundary gives you both speed and safety.

Running agents you can actually trust

AI agents are the rare technology where the hard part isn’t getting them to do something, it’s deciding how much they’re allowed to do and where. Once you see an agent as a model plus tools plus an environment, the path forward gets clearer: choose the model, scope the tools, and put real thought into the environment. The first two get most of the attention. The third is where safety actually lives.

That’s the gap Docker Sandboxes is built to close. Each agent runs in its own disposable microVM with control over networking, filesystem access, and resource limits, so it can move fast inside a boundary instead of loose on your machine. And when you’re running agents across a team, AI Governance lets you set the rules once, which actions are allowed, what the network can reach, which credentials and tools are in play, and enforce them everywhere developers work. Define the boundary, then let the agents run.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why Docker is excited to co-host the first WeAreDevelopers World Congress North America

When we announced our partnership with WeAreDevelopers, AI agents were still mostly something developers experimented with. Today, they’re becoming part of everyday software development.

That’s why the timing for this year’s WeAreDevelopers World Congress couldn’t be better.

In the months since that announcement, the developer landscape has changed dramatically. If you’re writing software today, your workflow probably looks very different than it did a year ago. You’re prompting AI agents, reviewing AI-generated code, deciding what to accept and what to reject, and thinking about security much earlier in the development process.

Developers are no longer spending all of their time writing code. They’re designing systems that generate code, supervising autonomous agents, deciding what those agents can access, reviewing AI-generated changes, and making sure software is secure before it reaches production. 

That shift feels a lot like the rise of data science a little over a decade ago. We didn’t replace programmers. We created an entirely new discipline that blended software engineering, mathematics, and statistics into something bigger.

I think we’re seeing the beginning of a similar transformation. Whether we continue calling ourselves developers, builders, or something entirely new almost doesn’t matter. The role itself is changing. 

The best engineers of the next decade won’t simply write software. They’ll orchestrate teams of AI agents, establish the guardrails those agents operate within, and ultimately remain accountable for the systems they create.

That’s the conversation our industry needs to have. It’s also why this year’s WeAreDevelopers World Congress feels so important.

A conference built around developers

From September 23 through 25, thousands of developers will gather at the San Jose McEnery Convention Center for the first ever WeAreDevelopers World Congress North America.

Docker is proud to serve as a presenting partner, but our goal isn’t to make this a Docker event.

Our goal is to help create a place where developers can learn from each other.

That’s why we partnered with WeAreDevelopers in the first place. They’ve spent more than a decade building one of the world’s strongest developer communities by focusing on the people building software, not the companies selling it. As AI reshapes how software gets built, North American developers need more than another vendor conference. They need a place to compare notes, share what’s actually working, challenge assumptions, and learn from peers facing many of the same questions.

The best developer conferences have never been about product launches. They’re about conversations. They’re about seeing how other engineers solve problems, discovering tools you didn’t know existed, and leaving with ideas you can actually use on Monday morning.

That’s what has made WeAreDevelopers so successful around the world, and that’s what we’re excited to help bring to the U.S.

The conversation has changed

Over the last year, nearly every conversation I’ve had with engineering leaders has landed in the same place.

Everyone wants the productivity gains that AI agents promise.

If you’ve spent any time with Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, or another coding agent, you’ve probably experienced it yourself. You can move faster than ever before. Then you stop and ask a different set of questions.

What is the agent actually doing?

Can it reach internal systems?

What credentials is it using?

Where is my data going?

How much autonomy am I comfortable giving it?

Those questions aren’t theoretical anymore. They’re becoming everyday engineering problems.

At Docker, they’ve shaped much of what we’ve been building.

We’ve introduced Docker Sandboxes so developers can run AI agents safely without changing how they work. We’ve launched Docker AI Governance to give organizations visibility and control over autonomous agents. We’ve continued investing in Docker Hardened Images because supply chain security only becomes more important as AI generates more code.

They’re all pieces of the same philosophy.

You shouldn’t have to choose between moving fast and staying secure.

The tooling should make both possible.

Meet the Docker team

We’ll have Docker engineers and leaders speaking throughout the event, including:

• Mark Cavage, President & COO
• Tushar Jain, EVP of Engineering & Product
• Mark Lechner, CISO

We’ll also have engineers throughout the conference sharing what we’ve learned building for the next generation of software development, from AI-native workflows and developer productivity to security, containers, and the infrastructure that powers modern applications.

If you’ve been experimenting with agents, thinking about governance, or trying to figure out what secure AI development looks like inside your organization, we’d love to continue the conversation.

See you in San Jose

One thing has remained true throughout every shift in our industry.

Developers learn best from other developers.

That’s what makes communities like WeAreDevelopers special. It’s what has always made the Docker community special too.

AI will continue changing how software gets built. The tools will evolve. Our workflows will evolve right along with them.

What’s next won’t be shaped by any one company. It will be shaped by developers sharing ideas, challenging assumptions, experimenting with new ways of working, and building together.

That’s exactly what we hope to see in San Jose.

Whether you’re exploring AI agents for the first time, figuring out how to govern them at scale, or simply curious about where software engineering is headed next, we’d love to continue the conversation.

Come see what Docker is building for the next generation of software development, and join thousands of developers who are helping define what’s next.

Register today. We’ll see you in San Jose.