Anyone else having issues with false positives from the container image scan?

I've been running Check Point CloudGuard for our container registry scanning in our main development pipeline for about six months now, and overall, the posture management and runtime protection have been solid. However, I've hit a consistent and increasingly frustrating snag with the static image scanning component, specifically around what I believe are false positives on certain package vulnerabilities.

Our workflow involves building images primarily from a mix of official language base images (like `node:18-alpine`, `python:3.11-slim`) and then scanning them post-build before promotion to our staging environment. Lately, the scan reports are flagging `CRITICAL` and `HIGH` severity CVEs in underlying system libraries (think `libssl`, `apk-tools`, `libcrypto`) that, according to the upstream Alpine or Debian security trackers, were patched several versions ago. The image manifest clearly shows the patched versions are installed.

Here's a breakdown of what I'm observing:

* The discrepancy seems most pronounced on `distroless`-style images and minimal Alpine variants. It's as if the scanner is using an older or generic CPE (Common Platform Enumeration) dictionary that doesn't align with the distro's own package naming and versioning scheme.
* We've also had issues with language-specific packages (e.g., npm, pip). A vulnerability is correctly identified in, say, `lodash`, but the remediation advice sometimes suggests updating to a version that is incompatible with the major version specified in our `package.json`, which isn't practically helpful for a dev team.
* The manual override/approval process for these false positives within the console feels clunky. It's per-finding, per-image, and doesn't seem to learn or allow for creating a shared organizational rule like "ignore CVE-XXXX-YYYY on all images using `openjdk:17` where version > 17.0.5."

This creates real operational friction. Our security team gets alerted, tickets get generated, and developers spend time investigating and justifying why a finding isn't applicable, which slows down deployments and breeds alert fatigue.

My questions for the community are:

* Is anyone else running into similar pattern-matching or version identification issues with CloudGuard's container scan, particularly on lightweight base images?
* Have you found a reliable way to tune the scanner's sensitivity or feed it more accurate base image data?
* Are you using the CLI tool versus the integrated registry scan, and does one seem more accurate than the other?
* How are you managing the workflow of suppressing known false positives across hundreds of images without creating a governance gap?

I'm curious if this is a known challenge with a specific configuration fix, or if it's more of a fundamental data source issue between Check Point's threat intelligence and the pace of open-source OS updates. Any insights or shared experiences would be incredibly helpful as we try to balance security rigor with pipeline velocity.

~jason