Wouldn’t it make more sense to define dark matter as all the stuff that is installed in a container but never activated (unless exploited?)
That seems to specifically exclude software installed by, say, language-specific package managers (Cargo, Rubygems, npm and derivatives) -- which on the whole seems pretty perverse. Dealing with those does indeed complicate SBOM maintenance -- but people use them anyway for very good reasons (which sometimes include getting more secure versions of the packaged code!), and having tools that work in the real world requires dealing with that complexity, not wishing it away.
Also because of as they write about containers. In a container all files are tracked. That's the container.
"Dark matter" here is anything these tools can't see / notice vulnerabilities in.
Seems like really useless metric for containers.
I can get it for OSes (some packages there do manage DB data, and even have option to remove it when removing package) but for container it does seem a bit pointless
(But also, even ignoring that, I believe the metric used by the article is number-of-files, not byte-size. A DB might be large in byte-size, but is usually relatively negligible in number-of-files, usually holding individual table chunk files of 1GB or larger.)
The goal is, presumably, to figure out when a given docker image was created in such a way that it burns in a vulnerable version of some library; so that the author can be alerted that they need to (update their Dockerfile and) rebuild their image.
"Dark matter", under this definition, is anything that gets injected during the build process of the image, that is not itself traceable to some other versioned package management system with vulnerable-version deprecation. Without such information, an automated agent like the one described in the article cannot then propagate deprecations from consumed package-versions to produced image-tags.
A good example of such "dark matter" would be a static binary built outside the Dockerfile using a CI system, where the CI then creates a docker image by running a Dockerfile that simply injects the expected prebuilt binary into an image with an ADD stanza. Does that binary contain vulnerable versions of embedded static libraries? Who knows?
For Wordpress, most scanners will miss that PHP or Wordpress are even installed in the image. The scanners spit out lots of data, but it's only about what they can find, offering the illusion of completeness or transparency.
I also agree with your "wouldn't it make more sense" definition. From the perspective of a developer concerned about the security and robustness of their own deployment, "dark matter" would be anything that ends up in my container that I don't actually need to run the app in the container.