The whole paper is worth reading and is largely factually and historically correct. People often pay analysts hundreds of dollars for papers like this. Consider it a gift.
I found six inaccuracies in as many minutes after opening the PDF and scrolling to random pages. So I'm not sure that's true. I'm also not the only one making that claim, `spender has too:
https://twitter.com/grsecurity/status/722935691114512385?lan...
I don't want to knock the paper too hard without actually sitting down and reading it (which I'm going to do tonight, and I won't dump raw notes on HN until I've given the paper a serious chance), but I'm not encouraged right off the bat. I've been deep in the rkt integration hole and a lot of stuff referring to rkt is very rough and surface-level and, in five of the cases I mentioned, blatantly factually inaccurate. Same with Docker, too, actually, though the paper is quite obviously partisan (see http://imgur.com/a/D6nEw for example).
I tried extremely hard to not be "partisan", and I don't think I am kind to any container platform, but it's hard to argue where Docker is vs Rkt in terms of security (apart from possibly hw virtualization in Rkt Stage 1). I agree some of the Rkt stuff is higher level, mostly because after a large number of container assessments at some major companies, I have yet to come across Rkt. Most of my research comes from my own brief analysis, and the analysis of some peers. Maybe a future version will cover it more in-depth.