tracee

Pros of Falco

• More mature project with a larger community and ecosystem
• Extensive rule set and detection capabilities out-of-the-box
• Supports multiple output formats and integrations with various SIEM systems

Cons of Falco

• Higher resource consumption, especially in large-scale environments
• Steeper learning curve for creating custom rules and configurations
• Limited support for non-Linux operating systems

Code Comparison

Falco rule example:

- rule: Unauthorized Process
  desc: Detect unauthorized process execution
  condition: proc.name in (unauthorized_processes)
  output: "Unauthorized process started (user=%user.name command=%proc.cmdline)"
  priority: WARNING

Tracee rule example:

rules:
  - name: unauthorized_process
    event: sched_process_exec
    filter:
      - comm in (unauthorized_processes)
    output: "Unauthorized process started: {{.comm}}"

Both projects use YAML for rule definitions, but Falco's syntax is more verbose and includes additional fields like priority. Tracee's rules are more concise and focus on event-based filtering.

Pros of Tetragon

• Tightly integrated with Cilium's eBPF-based networking and security features
• Provides real-time visibility into network flows and security events
• Offers advanced policy enforcement capabilities

Cons of Tetragon

• Primarily focused on Kubernetes environments
• Steeper learning curve due to its integration with Cilium ecosystem
• Less extensive documentation compared to Tracee

Code Comparison

Tracee example (simplified):

func main() {
    events := tracee.Trace()
    for event := range events {
        fmt.Printf("Event: %+v\n", event)
    }
}

Tetragon example (simplified):

func main() {
    events := tetragon.GetEvents()
    for event := range events {
        fmt.Printf("Event: %+v\n", event)
    }
}

Both projects use eBPF for runtime security and observability, but their implementations and focus areas differ. Tracee provides a more standalone solution for system-wide tracing, while Tetragon is designed to work seamlessly within the Cilium ecosystem, offering tighter integration with network-centric security features.

Tracee offers broader OS support and more extensive documentation, making it potentially easier for newcomers to adopt. Tetragon, on the other hand, excels in Kubernetes environments and provides advanced network flow visibility and policy enforcement capabilities.

Pros of Wazuh

• Comprehensive security platform with SIEM, XDR, and compliance capabilities
• Extensive integrations with various security tools and platforms
• Well-established community and extensive documentation

Cons of Wazuh

• More complex setup and configuration compared to Tracee
• Higher resource consumption due to its broader feature set
• Steeper learning curve for new users

Code Comparison

Tracee (eBPF-based event capture):

SEC("tracepoint/syscalls/sys_enter_execve")
int tracepoint__syscalls__sys_enter_execve(struct trace_event_raw_sys_enter* ctx)
{
    // Event handling logic
}

Wazuh (Rule definition):

<rule id="100001" level="5">
  <if_sid>5716</if_sid>
  <match>^New group added</match>
  <description>New group added to the system</description>
</rule>

Key Differences

• Tracee focuses on eBPF-based runtime security and observability, while Wazuh offers a broader security information and event management (SIEM) solution
• Tracee is more lightweight and specialized for container and Kubernetes environments, whereas Wazuh provides a more comprehensive security platform for various infrastructure types
• Tracee's development is primarily driven by Aqua Security, while Wazuh has a larger open-source community contributing to its development

Pros of BCC

• More mature project with a larger community and extensive documentation
• Supports a wider range of programming languages for writing eBPF programs
• Provides a rich set of pre-built tools for various system analysis tasks

Cons of BCC

• Steeper learning curve due to its broader scope and complexity
• Requires more system resources and dependencies for installation and usage
• Less focused on security-specific use cases compared to Tracee

Code Comparison

BCC example (Python):

from bcc import BPF

prog = """
int hello(void *ctx) {
    bpf_trace_printk("Hello, World!\\n");
    return 0;
}
"""

b = BPF(text=prog)
b.attach_kprobe(event=b.get_syscall_fnname("clone"), fn_name="hello")
b.trace_print()

Tracee example (Go):

package main

import (
    "github.com/aquasecurity/tracee/pkg/ebpf"
)

func main() {
    tracee, _ := ebpf.NewTracer(&ebpf.Config{})
    tracee.Run()
}

Both projects leverage eBPF technology, but BCC offers a more general-purpose toolkit for system analysis, while Tracee focuses on security monitoring and threat detection in containerized environments.