A Blueprint on Ways to Get Rid of Cloud Security Issues
About UsConferencePartner With Us
CIOREVIEW >> Security >> NEWS

A Blueprint on Ways to Get Rid of Cloud Security Issues

CIO Review

“How do I secure my data?” is a major concern of CIOs leveraging cloud computing technology for data storage in their organization. As data is sensitive asset of an organization, it entails high level of security and agitation. Security issues in cloud computing vary depending upon the type of cloud models—Public, Private, and Hybrid and the service models employed in the organization. And to suppress the security issues astute selection of tools and its implementation is necessary.   

Avoiding Security Issues with the Cloud

Minimize Lack of Control:  Some system managers adduce data control as a person’s concern while leveraging cloud applications. Cloud applications are business-critical functions, where unexpected outages push FUD among the customers. Such an instance occurred on 11 April when an outage was witnessed by users globally using Google’s IaaS (Infrastructure-as-a-Service)—Compute Engine; this outage lasted for18 minutes. After analyzing the breakdown, Google executives found that the failure was due to a bug in the Network Configuration Management software.

Stay ahead of the industry with exclusive feature stories on the top companies, expert insights and the latest news delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe today.

An outage may also be caused by a SPOF (Single Point of Failure) in a cloud computing system when any single component of the system disintegrates, stopping the entire system. Fearing outages, some organization leaders opted for third-party vendors—Prescient Solutions, Infinitely Virtual and similar organizations to ensure safety of data.  But when data comes to third-party, data owners lack control and transparency of data and that becomes a potential organizational threat. Turning over to  lack of control, brings into picture a major data breach incident witnessed by a public retail industry, Target Corporation where 70 million credit and debit card retail users data was stolen, leading to the loss of profits.

Improving control over cloud data is not a daunting task. To minimize lack of control an organization must primarily select a suitable cloud framework that will introduce some security standards. There are two cloud frameworks available—FedRAMP (Federal Risk and Management Accreditation Program) and G-Cloud framework. FedRAMP’s security standards include FISMA, NIST 800, and FIPS-199; the U.K. Government G-Cloud framework features security principles that are online. After selecting a framework, assessment, and deployment of best cloud practices—Cloud Security Alliance and Cloud Best Practice Network is necessary to get an optimum cloud practice which will help in creating new cloud applications or facilitate easy migration of existing applications to the cloud.  

Post deployment, the assessment of the cloud practice is a crucial task and can be done by carrying out gap analysis. The analysis portrays a complete picture between the business requirements and compliance needs—PCI, HIPAA, and Tax data with the actual activities on the network. Further, to analyze the requirements and needs, conduct an enterprise cloud risk assessment focusing on cloud application, which helps to detect location of data. Organizations can also plan and address “Stealth IT. This step assists in obtaining an action plan; there are some companies that help through this planning and remediation process.    

Minimize Multitenancy: The fundamental principle of ‘Multitenancy’ is multiple tenants sharing the same computer hardware. It has been a boon to businesses that use cloud technology by offering those services at a reduced cost. However “Everything costs something”, and the multitenancy approach presents many challenges—compliance, security and privacy. Lack of efficient bandwidth and data isolation makes cloud computing a laborious work, as tenants launch attack towards co-resident in the same data centre. One such instance is an experiment conducted by a team of researchers using Amazon’s EC2 IaaS (Infrastructure-as-a-Service) offering, where they potentially had the ability to map the cloud infrastructure and locate specific target virtual machines. After locating the target, the researchers were able to access and reliably place a virtual machine that they controlled on the same physical server. This capability enables a variety of virtual-machine-escape attacks to compromise the target.  Hence, in multi-tenant IaaS, neighbors are similar to malicious insiders. To combat such attacks, CIOs need to design countermeasures for multitenancy involved in these three categories of risks:

• Governance, Control and Auditing: Governance and control can be gained by implementing the concept of Separation of Duties (SoD), were a single task, function or component is segregated  into multiple areas of responsibility and are assigned to different individuals. SoD governs the powers or capabilities by defining individual’s role. After defining the roles auditing needs to be conducted to maintain a minimum allowable security posture. There are some IT auditing frameworks available—CobiT and Systrust.

• Shared Services (IaaS, SaaS, and PaaS): Shared services are an intrinsic part of cloud computing. Where the risk involved by MTA clients can be categorized on the type of shared services.

In IaaS model, each client’s environment is hosted and controlled by a version of hypervisor or virtualization software. The security, robustness of hypervisor software defines the tenant’s cloud environment. And to prevent exploitations in the MTA (Multi Tenant Architecture) cloud service providers need to maintain and upgrade their hypervisor software and implement network or host based intrusion detection and prevention system.

In a SaaS model, a single object code for each MTA tenant is the name of the game. When the code is corrupted, each tenant on the MTA can access the private data of other clients. To prevent such events from happening, SaaS solutions should be developed using Aspect-Oriented Programming (AOP), which allows each client to use the same object code but implement different security measures—authentication, access algorithm, cipher strength and others.

With PaaS, each tenant may have various layers of their hosted solution—business logic, data access logic and storage, and presentation logic. The risk in PaaS is the lack of configuration information, which can be countered by maintaining a dependency map for each tenant.

• Logical Security, Access Control, and Encryption: MTA client’s data is protected through strong encryption protocols. Possibilities of having the same encryption algorithms also occur and to suppress this risk ‘Predicate Encryption’ and ‘Homomorphic Encryption’ mechanisms are used to efficiently control encryption and decryption of data segments that are stored.  Additionally, to ease access management Role-based Access Control (RBAC) can be implemented which will comprehensively employ authorization rules without changing the underlying permissions.

Check out: Top Cloud Security Companies

More in News

A software engineering and AI analytics purchase can fail long before model accuracy becomes a concern. The bigger challenge is often the handoff between existing infrastructure and new analytics, especially when camera networks and edge devices were never designed to share context. Replacing everything may simplify architecture on paper, but it can strain capital requirements and stretch deployment timelines. Buyers need to know whether a platform can work across existing technology boundaries without turning modernization into a wholesale infrastructure project.  Integration depth is therefore more revealing than the number of AI features on a product sheet. A useful platform should accept heterogeneous inputs and expose their data through a common control layer without forcing every piece of existing hardware to conform to one technical standard. It should also preserve the usefulness of legacy assets while making their information accessible to newer analytics. That matters in distributed environments where hardware replacement may be slow or economically unjustified. The real question is whether modernization can proceed around installed infrastructure rather than requiring a clean slate.  Real-time analytics creates an attention problem of its own. Video feeds and sensor events can overwhelm staff when every detection is treated as equally important. Buyers should examine how a platform separates routine activity from events that merit human review, and then look at how quickly those events reach the people responsible for validation. The difference between raw monitoring and useful analytics lies in this filtering step. A system that produces more alerts without improving prioritization merely transfers workload from observation to triage.  Architecture becomes more consequential as data volumes rise. Sending every high-definition stream to a centralized cloud environment can create avoidable bandwidth costs and response delays. Edge processing can reduce that burden when analytics are performed close to the source and only selected information moves upstream. Yet edge deployment introduces management demands. Devices and application services still need a coherent way to exchange information and support later investigation. Buyers should also examine how much infrastructure complexity is added when analytics move closer to the source.  “ CFBD ’s hybrid architecture connects legacy environments to newer computing infrastructure through hyperconvergence and virtualization.” Searchability deserves equal importance. Once video or sensor data has been transformed into structured metadata, teams should be able to move from live detection to later investigation without manually reviewing hours of footage. Useful systems retain descriptive attributes and behavioral context in forms that can be queried quickly. The buying question is whether that context survives across live monitoring and retrospective analysis rather than being trapped in separate workflows. Fast retrieval matters because delayed investigation can erase much of the advantage gained from real-time detection.  CFBD merits consideration for buyers facing this mix of integration pressure and analytics workload. Its AZOR Ecosystem, a real-time data orchestration platform, centralizes video and sensor information. AZOR Panel, a centralized monitoring interface, receives AI-filtered events for human validation. AZOR Analytics, a video analytics component, supports real-time and forensic analysis, while edge gateways can process video near the source and pass lighter event data upstream. Its hybrid architecture connects legacy environments to newer computing infrastructure through hyperconvergence and virtualization. The fit is strongest where replacement costs and operator overload are material constraints. For organizations that need AI analytics without discarding usable infrastructure, CFBD is a practical choice.  ...Read more
Customer outreach is moving faster than many compliance programs were designed to govern. A campaign assembled in hours can pass through several applications before a call, text, email or prerecorded message reaches a customer, while autonomous agents compress that cycle further. The exposure is no longer limited to whether a record appeared on a suppression list. Consent status, channel permissions, time-of-day rules and state or federal restrictions can change the answer at the moment of contact. A platform that checks too late leaves legal teams reconstructing decisions after the communication has already occurred. Static controls also create a quieter commercial problem. Large enterprises often carry separate customer records across business units, and a broad opt-out can be applied far beyond the product or channel the customer intended. Conservative suppression may reduce legal exposure, yet it can also remove legitimate audiences from campaigns and weaken the return on CRM or marketing technology investments. Effective governance needs enough context to distinguish a prohibited contact from an allowable one without forcing every business unit to maintain its own interpretation of the rules. The harder test is whether those distinctions survive as consent records move between systems and outreach programs change. “Gryphon’s deterministic rules-based decisioning evaluates contact permissions in real time, while automated evidence capture gives legal and compliance teams a defensible record of why each decision was made.” Speed matters at the decision point, not merely during campaign preparation. List scrubbing and periodic audits remain useful for certain tasks, but neither is designed to govern communications that originate across contact centers, individual employees, enterprise applications and autonomous agents. Decisioning should sit inside the existing workflow and evaluate the applicable permissions before outreach proceeds. The answer also needs to return quickly enough that compliance does not become a queue. Enterprise scale is equally important. A control layer that works only for one channel or one application recreates the same fragmentation it was purchased to remove. Policy changes also need to propagate without campaign teams waiting for separate rule updates in each downstream application, especially when restrictions take effect quickly. Defensibility separates governance from simple blocking. Executives should expect a clear record of the rule applied, the evidence used, the policy version and the reason a communication was allowed or stopped. Those records need to remain searchable as regulations and internal policies change. Deterministic decisioning has particular value where an organization must later explain exactly why a contact was permitted. The same discipline helps compliance teams identify oversuppression rather than treating every uncertain record as unusable. Buyers should also examine how readily the platform connects to existing CRM, contact-center, marketing automation and governance systems, since a long replacement project can undermine the speed advantage that real-time controls are meant to provide. Gryphon  is the premier choice for enterprises that need contact governance embedded directly into customer engagement rather than added as a later review. Its platform applies real-time controls across voice, SMS, email and interactions generated by AI agents while integrating with existing enterprise applications. Gryphon’s deterministic rules-based decisioning evaluates contact permissions in real time, while automated evidence capture gives legal and compliance teams a defensible record of why each decision was made. Compliance Hub extends that visibility into audit research and reporting. The platform also identifies contacts suppressed too broadly, helping organizations preserve legitimate reach without relaxing policy enforcement. For buyers balancing regulatory exposure against legitimate customer contact, point-of-contact enforcement paired with documented decision logic makes Gryphon a practical recommendation. ...Read more
Disconnected data work rarely begins at the pipeline itself. The delay often appears earlier, when a proposed data product moves from a business idea into requirements, architecture decisions, access controls and a development environment. Each handoff can introduce another tool or approval path, while product context becomes harder to preserve. By the time engineering begins, teams may already be reconciling mismatched project names, duplicated documentation, fragmented ownership and inconsistent setup across systems. Portfolio-level visibility also matters before engineering starts. A platform that preserves business cases alongside product definitions can help leadership compare proposed work, assign teams and select technology stacks without separating prioritization from the delivery path that eventually executes those decisions. That fragmentation becomes expensive when orchestration is purchased as another isolated layer. Data teams commonly work across cloud infrastructure, code repositories, ticketing systems and specialist data platforms, while product managers and architects need continuity across the same work. Replacing that estate is rarely the practical objective. A stronger platform coordinates existing environments while preserving product identity and approved technology choices throughout delivery. Integration depth matters less as a feature count than as a way to remove repeated setup and cross-tool reconciliation. “Calibo can establish access to selected technology stacks and generate CI/CD pathways for controlled movement between development and production environments.” Self-service also needs boundaries. Provisioning development environments, granting access, creating repositories and triggering infrastructure changes can remove substantial waiting time, but only when those actions follow established controls. The useful distinction is whether routine requests can execute from approved templates and policies rather than pass through manual service tickets. That changes the role of platform and architecture teams. Instead of completing repetitive setup on demand, they can establish guardrails that engineering teams use independently. Traceability becomes harder once a project leaves experimentation and enters controlled delivery. Changes to requirements can alter pipeline work, while release movement creates dependencies across development, test, staging and production. Executives need a clear line from the original business case to the technical work that follows, particularly when multiple data products compete for budget or shared engineering capacity. Visibility into status, resource use, dependencies and release progress helps management identify where work is waiting without rebuilding the picture from separate tools. It can also expose queueing between teams before delayed approvals become late-stage release problems. Release control should be treated as part of orchestration rather than an adjacent DevOps concern. Creating a pipeline is only part of the purchase decision. The harder question is whether code and data products can move through governed environments without custom coordination each time. Automated CI/CD setup, reusable templates, policy-based promotion and dependency visibility can make that movement repeatable. This becomes more important for AI-related data work, where experiments can appear quickly but production use depends on controlled access, governed data movement, documented lineage and consistent release practices. Calibo merits recommendation for enterprises that want data orchestration tied directly to the broader delivery lifecycle. Its Data Fabric Studio supports reusable data pipelines. The wider platform carries product context into the development toolchain while automating environment setup. Calibo can establish access to selected technology stacks and generate CI/CD pathways for controlled movement between development and production environments. Its Release Orchestration capability extends that model into deployment governance and dependency management. This gives data teams a self-service framework that reduces manual handoffs while keeping technical work connected to the product context and enterprise controls that initiated it. ...Read more
As software development becomes more reliant on AI, companies have started to focus more on the process of coding, changing, and attributing. Code attribution systems for AI are becoming common for helping engineering professionals know the source of code, differentiate human contributions from that done by AI, and remain visible in the development environment. Their importance goes beyond that of mere tracking since attribution can affect intellectual property management, security assessments, compliance procedures, and engineering performance. However, the implementation of these platforms poses some problems that organizations need to solve before they can effectively use attribution. How Can Organizations Maintain Accurate Code Attribution? An important issue here is the question of establishing accurate attribution in a complicated process of software development. Nowadays, software development includes many repositories, development environments, libraries, automated systems, and cooperation models. The suggestions generated by the artificial intelligence can be accepted, modified, mixed with the existing code, or completely rewritten by the developer. As a result, it becomes difficult to distinguish what part was done with the help of AI and what was developed independently by humans. Data quality also poses a challenge. Attributing authorship requires the availability of development history, history of code changes, prompts, suggestions, and modification patterns. Poor data quality can lead to erroneous findings, especially where organizations employ different methods for software development or use a different set of tools for development. It is imperative for businesses to come up with data standards for the consistency of findings. Issues related to privacy and intellectual property rights make the scenario even more complicated. The source code may include business logic, proprietary processes, and customer data. Companies that choose to implement the attribution platforms need to pay special attention to the way the development data will be gathered, analyzed, stored, and made available. What Makes AI Attribution Difficult Across Enterprise Development? The other challenge is that of incorporating the attribution process into the current engineering process. Companies typically have heterogeneous technology stacks and development processes. This implies that any attribution solution has to be compatible with the source code repositories, issue tracking platforms, code reviews, security mechanisms and so forth. If not, fragmentation and extra manual processes arise. Interpretation is just as crucial. Metrics related to attribution should not be automatically assumed to reflect developer productivity or the quality of code written. While AI can alter how engineers spend their time, more generated code does not imply a better result. Business context regarding maintainability, reliability, reviews, security, and business needs should also be factored in, along with attribution. Attributing AI code is going to be contingent upon transparency, interoperability, and good governance. Enterprises are going to require established processes for attributing contributions made by AI and also explaining how the information is to be utilized. Software systems capable of creating traceable evidence, easy integration, and clear reporting can enable enterprises to create more trust when it comes to AI-enabled development efforts. Taking a good approach towards these considerations will enable enterprises to get visibility regarding the use of AI in coding without having to risk their intellectual property rights and engineering accountability. ...Read more