Open Access

Confidential Computing Pipelines for Kubernetes Observability Data: An Attested Architecture for Logs, Metrics, Traces, and Audit Events

4 Independent Researcher, USA

Abstract

Kubernetes observability pipelines collect logs, metrics, traces, and audit events that are essential for reliability engineering, incident response, compliance, and capacity planning. However, these same signals frequently contain sensitive application payloads, tenant identifiers, access tokens, internal topology, operational metadata, and personally identifiable information. Conventional protections--transport encryption, storage encryption, role-based access control, and backend retention policies--do not protect telemetry while it is being parsed, enriched, sampled, correlated, redacted, routed, or queried. This creates a security gap: the observability pipeline itself becomes a privileged data-processing system.

This paper proposes ConfObs-TEE, a confidential computing architecture for Kubernetes observability data. This design-science study presents a reference architecture and a prospective prototype-evaluation plan; it does not report measured implementation results. The architecture places the highest-risk telemetry operations inside hardware-backed, remotely attested Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs), while preserving compatibility with OpenTelemetry Collector patterns and Kubernetes-native deployment models. ConfObs-TEE uses attested collector agents, confidential gateway collectors, policy-bound key release, signed pipeline manifests, field-level tokenization, envelope encryption, and verifiable lineage metadata to reduce trust in cluster nodes, cloud administrators, telemetry operators, and observability backends. The design is grounded in current cloud-native mechanisms, including OpenTelemetry Collector receivers, processors, and exporters; Kubernetes metadata enrichment; Confidential Containers; Key Broker Service-style attestation; and the IETF RATS attestation model. The paper contributes a threat model for observability data in Kubernetes, a reference architecture, a policy and key-management design, a security analysis, and an evaluation methodology for future prototype validation. The central design conclusion is that confidential computing should not be applied indiscriminately to the entire observability stack, but selectively to the raw-data, enrichment, correlation, redaction, and key-handling stages where plaintext exposure and operator privilege are most consequential.

Keywords

References

Confidential Computing Consortium, “About Confidential Computing,” Linux Foundation, 2026. Available: https://confidentialcomputing.io/about/. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
Confidential Computing Consortium, Confidential Computing: Hardware-Based Trusted Execution for Applications and Data, Linux Foundation, 2021. Available: https://confidentialcomputing.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/03/CCC-A-Technical-Analysis-of-Confidential-Computing-v1.3_unlocked.pdf. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
Kubernetes Authors, “Observability,” Kubernetes Documentation. Available: https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/cluster-administration/observability/. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
Kubernetes Authors, “Auditing,” Kubernetes Documentation. Available: https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/debug/debug-cluster/audit/. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
OpenTelemetry Authors, “Collector,” OpenTelemetry Documentation. Available: https://opentelemetry.io/docs/collector/. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
OpenTelemetry Authors, “Collector Components,” OpenTelemetry Documentation. Available: https://opentelemetry.io/docs/collector/components/. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
OpenTelemetry Authors, “Install the Collector with Kubernetes,” OpenTelemetry Documentation. Available: https://opentelemetry.io/docs/platforms/kubernetes/collector/. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
OpenTelemetry Authors, “Important Components for Kubernetes,” OpenTelemetry Documentation. Available: https://opentelemetry.io/docs/platforms/kubernetes/collector/components/. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
OpenTelemetry Authors, “Handling Sensitive Data,” OpenTelemetry Documentation. Available: https://opentelemetry.io/docs/security/handling-sensitive-data/. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
H. Birkholz, D. Thaler, M. Richardson, N. Smith, and W. Pan, “Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS) Architecture,” IETF RFC 9334, Jan. 2023. doi: 10.17487/RFC9334.
Confidential Containers Authors, “Attestation and Key Broker Service,” Confidential Containers Documentation. Available: https://confidentialcontainers.org/docs/architecture/. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
Confidential Containers Authors, “Trust Model,” Confidential Containers Documentation. Available: https://confidentialcontainers.org/docs/architecture/trust-model/. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
Cloud Native Computing Foundation, “Confidential Containers,” CNCF Project Page. Available: https://www.cncf.io/projects/confidential-containers/. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
OpenTelemetry Collector Contrib Authors, “Kubernetes Attributes Processor,” GitHub. Available: https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib/tree/main/processor/k8sattributesprocessor. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
A. Muñoz, R. Ríos, R. Román, and J. López, “A survey on the (in)security of Trusted Execution Environments,” Computers & Security, vol. 129, art. 103180, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2023.103180.
K. Murdock, D. Oswald, F. D. Garcia, J. Van Bulck, D. Gruss, and F. Piessens, “Plundervolt: Software-based fault injection attacks against Intel SGX,” in 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 1466–1482, 2020. doi: 10.1109/SP40000.2020.00057.
B. Schlüter, C. Wech, and S. Shinde, “FABRICKED: Misconfiguring Infinity Fabric to Break AMD SEV-SNP,” in 35th USENIX Security Symposium, 2026. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity26/presentation/schlueter-fabricked.
AMD, “SEV-SNP Routing Misconfiguration,” AMD Security Bulletin AMD-SB-3034, 2026. Available: https://www.amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/amd-sb-3034.html. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
Open Policy Agent Authors, “Open Policy Agent,” Documentation. Available: https://www.openpolicyagent.org/docs/latest/. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
SPIFFE Authors, “SPIRE Concepts,” SPIFFE Documentation. Available: https://spiffe.io/docs/latest/spire-about/spire-concepts/. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
Sigstore Authors, “Signing Containers and Attesting an Image,” Sigstore Documentation. Available: https://docs.sigstore.dev/cosign/signing/signing_with_containers/. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
SLSA Authors, “Provenance,” Supply-chain Levels for Software Artifacts. Available: https://slsa.dev/spec/v1.1/provenance. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
Y. Gan et al., “An Open-Source Benchmark Suite for Microservices and Their Hardware-Software Implications for Cloud and Edge Systems,” in Proceedings of ASPLOS, pp. 3–18, 2019. doi: 10.1145/3293882.3330243. Project: https://github.com/delimitrou/DeathStarBench.
Google Cloud Platform, “Online Boutique: Cloud-first microservices demo application,” GitHub. Available: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/microservices-demo. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
OpenTelemetry Authors, “Collector Benchmarks,” GitHub. Available: https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib/tree/main/testbed. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2026.
S. Aghili, H. Li, and F. Khomh, “An Empirical Study of Sensitive Information in Logs,” arXiv:2409.11313, 2024. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11313. Preprint; not peer reviewed as of Aug. 24, 2026.
B. Schneier and J. Kelsey, “Secure audit logs to support computer forensics,” ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 159–176, 1999. doi: 10.1145/317087.317089.
D. Ma and G. Tsudik, “A new approach to secure logging,” ACM Transactions on Storage, vol. 5, no. 1, art. 2, 2009. doi: 10.1145/1502777.1502779.
V. Karande, E. Bauman, Z. Lin, and L. Khan, “SGX-Log: Securing system logs with SGX,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 19–30, 2017. doi: 10.1145/3052973.3053034.
C. Shepherd, R. N. Akram, and K. Markantonakis, “EmLog: Tamper-resistant system logging for constrained devices with TEEs,” in Information Security Theory and Practice, LNCS 10844, pp. 75–92, Springer, 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-93524-9_5.
N. Schear et al., “Bootstrapping and maintaining trust in the cloud,” in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference on Computer Security Applications, pp. 65–77, 2016. doi: 10.1145/2991079.2991104.
F. Schuster et al., “VC3: Trustworthy data analytics in the cloud using SGX,” in 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 38–54, 2015. doi: 10.1109/SP.2015.10.
W. Zheng et al., “Opaque: An oblivious and encrypted distributed analytics platform,” in 14th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, pp. 283–298, 2017. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi17/technical-sessions/presentation/zheng.
S. Arnautov et al., “SCONE: Secure Linux containers with Intel SGX,” in 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, pp. 689–703, 2016. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi16/technical-sessions/presentation/arnautov.
D. Vinayagamurthy, A. Gribov, and S. Gorbunov, “StealthDB: A scalable encrypted database with full SQL query support,” Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, vol. 2019, no. 3, pp. 370–388, 2019. doi: 10.2478/popets-2019-0052.
A. Bittau et al., “Prochlo: Strong privacy for analytics in the crowd,” in Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp. 441–459, 2017. doi: 10.1145/3132747.3132769.
H. Corrigan-Gibbs and D. Boneh, “Prio: Private, robust, and scalable computation of aggregate statistics,” in 14th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, pp. 259–282, 2017. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi17/technical-sessions/presentation/corrigan-gibbs.
Ú. Erlingsson, V. Pihur, and A. Korolova, “RAPPOR: Randomized aggregatable privacy-preserving ordinal response,” in Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 1054–1067, 2014. doi: 10.1145/2660267.2660348.
M. Mohammady et al., “Preserving both privacy and utility in network trace anonymization,” in Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 459–474, 2018. doi: 10.1145/3243734.3243809.
A. Agrawal et al., “DeLog: A high-performance privacy preserving log filtering framework,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data, pp. 3785–3794, 2019. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9006218.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

Similar Articles

31-40 of 42

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.