Definition
microVM vs container
Containers share a host kernel with namespace isolation. microVMs run a lightweight virtual machine with its own kernel, providing stronger isolation boundaries.
Why it matters
Agents run untrusted code and reach external APIs. Stronger isolation reduces risk when policies fail or exploits target the runtime.
How Islo helps
Islo uses microVM isolation per agent computer, combined with gateway egress controls and audit.
Isolation tradeoffs
Containers are fast and familiar. They share the host kernel, so a kernel exploit or misconfigured capability can affect neighbors. microVMs boot a separate kernel per instance, which adds a stronger boundary and slightly more startup cost. For agents that run untrusted code, install arbitrary packages, and reach external APIs, the extra isolation is usually worth the overhead.
Isolation is not the whole security story
Even perfect VM isolation does not stop an agent from calling an API it should not if credentials are wide open. Network egress policy, credential injection at the gateway, and per-request audit matter as much as the runtime boundary. Teams evaluating agent infrastructure should score both the compute isolation model and the control plane around outbound access.
Keep reading
Common questions
Are microVMs slower to start?
Often slightly slower than containers, but Islo optimizes warm starts for agent workflows.
Can I run Docker inside Islo?
Dev environments support the tooling your stack needs.
Which is more secure?
microVMs provide stronger isolation; gateway policy is still required for network egress.
Does Kubernetes Agent Sandbox replace this?
K8s Agent Sandbox is one approach; Islo is a managed operational layer. See our blog on agent sandbox.
What about Firecracker?
microVM technology similar to what powers many modern sandbox providers.