Debunking cloud native security risks
In recent years, the landscape of application development has undergone a profound transformation, marked by the meteoric rise of cloud-native adoption.
As technology continues to advance at an unprecedented pace, businesses across industries are reimagining their approach to software creation and deployment.
At the forefront of this paradigm shift is the concept of cloud-native application development – a modern approach that prioritises agility, scalability, and resilience in the digital era.
Today, organisations are increasingly turning to cloud-native practices to unlock new levels of efficiency, innovation, and competitiveness. This shift underscores a fundamental truth: in an age defined by rapid change and relentless digital disruption, adaptability is the key to survival.
Whether it's leveraging containerisation or DevSecOps methodologies, the principles of cloud-native development empower organisations to deliver value to their customers
faster and more reliably than ever before. Amidst this evolution, there's a critical need to address misconceptions, particularly in cloud-native security, as myths often abound.
MYTH: Traditional Security Suffices for Cloud Native Environments
Believing that traditional security products are effective in safeguarding cloud native systems overlooks their unique requirements.
It's a common misconception that traditional security approaches are sufficient for protecting cloud-native systems. This misconception fails to recognise the unique demands of cloud-native architectures, including not only containers but also serverless functions, which necessitate a different security approach. Moreover, it overlooks the constraints of traditional security tools in meeting these evolving needs.
Traditional tools are inadequate for effectively monitoring and managing the dynamic, decentralised nature of cloud-native architectures. In cloud native environments containers are ephemeral and can be rapidly spun up and down, traditional EDR and VM Security mechanisms were not made to handle such heterogenous and frequently updated workloads. They frequently struggle with the swift deployment and scaling demands of such environments, resulting in difficulties in monitoring and maintaining control.
Moreover, the regulatory landscape has yet to fully catch up with the specifics of cloud-native technologies, leading some to incorrectly assume that traditional compliance controls apply seamlessly in these new environments.
However, achieving compliance in cloud native systems often involves adopting specialised practices such as container image scanning, orchestrator hardening, and implementing detailed contextual event logging. These measures go beyond traditional security protocols, addressing the layered and interconnected nature of cloud-native architectures.
Ultimately, protecting cloud-native environments demands a departure from conventional security strategies, embracing methods that are as agile and scalable as the systems they aim to secure.
This includes adopting new tools and practices designed for the cloud-native context and rethinking compliance strategies to ensure their effectiveness in these complex environments. Acknowledging this shift is essential for organisations looking to safeguard their cloud-native assets against modern threats.
