Is Traditional EDR a Risk to Your Cloud Estate?
CIOREVIEW >> >> NEWS

Is Traditional EDR a Risk to Your Cloud Estate?

CIO Review

Cloud attacks are different

Organizations are transitioning into the cloud at warp speed, but cloud security tooling and training is lagging behind for the already stretched security teams. In an effort to bridge the gap from endpoint to cloud, teams are sometimes repurposing their traditional endpoint detection and response (EDR) and extended detection and response (“XDR) on their servers in a “good enough” approach.

Server or host security has historically been an ownership gray zone, where the protection approach varies based on organizational preferences. Security teams have typically focused protection on the host itself, while DevSecOps teams have prioritized protection of their crown jewels such as containers, Kubernetes, VMs, and workloads. Both approaches are half measures that don’t provide adequate outcomes. A more pragmatic approach is to both protect the server and mission-critical applications.

Traditional EDR is too slow for cloud

Security teams and leaders are under increased pressure to protect business interests, in part because the operational impacts of a breach can affect revenue, reputation, and even share prices. Unfortunately, the average dwell time for an attacker before being detected is 16 days, according the Mandiant M-Trends 2023 report, yet it only takes 10 minutes on average for attackers to breach a cloud environment, as reported in Sysdig’s 2023 Global Cloud Threat Report.

Enter the Sysdig 5/5/5 framework. 5 seconds to detect, 5 minutes to correlate, and 5 minutes to initiate a response. The traditional EDR approach to detecting attacks just doesn’t work in the cloud, where attacks are faster and environments are more complex. For instance, the average lifespan of a container is just 5 minutes. In an attack scenario, if the analyst does not see the detection within those 5 minutes, they will be unable to understand the scope of the event beyond just the alert. Security teams need the inherent advantages of cloud-native tooling for rapid and high-fidelity detections, followed by automatic contextualization and correlation of complex feeds. Accelerating detection and correlation across cloud-native services buys teams critical time as they initiate a response, a luxury not afforded with traditional EDR.

Advanced attacks, such as SCARLETEEL and ZERO TO ADMIN shown above, have the ability to move laterally between server and cloud. Traditional EDRs typically lack the visibility to see beyond the host, limiting context and correlation. This myopic view prevents security teams from being able to understand the incident context needed to respond within the 5/5/5 framework.

Sysdig’s end-to-end detection, investigation, and response capabilities accelerate teams, enabling the SOC to respond to threats at cloud speed. Traditional EDR just can’t deliver the speed, context, and response capabilities needed to stay ahead of attackers in the cloud.

Stepping back to move forward

To better understand why EDR’s “good enough” approach fails, we need to step back and look at the origins of traditional EDR: Windows workstations. Being purpose built for workstations and later being stretched into data centers, bare metal servers, and eventually the cloud results in critical shortcomings that security teams need to account for. Time-intensive tasks, such as attempting to correlate and contextualize events in container, Kubernetes, and serverless environments, slow teams to a crawl as they attempt to understand events. These core shortcomings set security teams up to fail.

Despite trying to change their spots to stripes, these traditional approaches are still unable to efficiently deliver adequate protection because of their foundational endpoint roots and immature Linux capabilities. The crux of this limitation is that EDR is purpose-built for endpoints, and as teams move into cloud-native services, those same value-drivers don’t exist.

For example, incidents in the cloud are multidimensional, so traditional EDR has trouble connecting and contextualizing the events that, although detected, are happening in separate dimensions. They simply can’t stitch them together. The only way for security teams to truly secure the cloud is with tools and platforms that are purpose-built for the cloud.

The future of cloud security – Bringing security and Dev together

Sysdig started deep in the cloud with containers and Kubernetes. These deep cloud roots are at the core of Sysdig’s cloud-native application protection platform (CNAPP), empowering Dev and security teams to protect cloud-based applications and infrastructure. Sysdig’s unified CNAPP capabilities, pictured below, create a bridge, connecting Dev, engineering, and security teams across their cloud estate. Detection and response capabilities within Sysdig CNAPP are part of Cloud Detection and Response (CDR). These capabilities, such as centralized controls, threat detection, and incident response, are built for maximal efficacy in the cloud. CDR supports the security center’s growing ownership of not only the server, but its contents and larger cloud relationships.

Upgrade to cloud-centric detection

Being rooted in the endpoint means EDR tools are primarily Windows workstation/endpoint centric. This relational misalignment limits visibility to cloud attacks where the focus should instead be centered on Windows and Linux services and applications. Further, EDR identification of lateral movement can be heavily dependent on network visibility, while cloud security tools achieve better visibility of lateral movement through identity and entitlements. Essentially, cloud logs and recording API calls provide better visibility and correlation by default (compared to traditional on-prem workloads), where lateral movement can only be inferred. These misalignments have major implications across critical instrumentation for collection, enrichment, correlation, and response in Linux environments.

Ditch the confines of traditional EDR black boxes

While traditional EDR operates from an opaque black box model, Sysdig’s Linux detections stand apart. Based on Falco, Sysdig has over 100 transparent rules for Linux servers across attack types, extending beyond traditional EDR capabilities in the cloud. Behavioral-based, fileless, and machine learning (ML) attack detections add additional layers of protection to the customizable logic teams can leverage to protect their organization. Real-time intrusion detection and response for kernel-level attacks uncover the subtlest of deviations from normal behavior, detecting stealthy techniques, such as BPF backdoor injection, even with obfuscation attempts. Malware-specific detections leverage behavioral, ML, and artificial intelligence (AI) approaches to protect cloud estates from a broad spectrum of cloud-relevant malware, including cryptominers and fileless attacks. Windows support also offers Sysdig’s superior transparency and support of custom logic to fit unique customer environments.

Graduate to cloud speed for correlated and contextualized investigations

Security teams with traditional EDR must manually stitch isolated events together, slowing their ability to effectively respond. Sysdig provides easy access to relevant, rich context so security teams can trace and build on an event across containers, hosts, and cloud activity. Activity Audit captures all interactive command executions, including every network connection, file access, and process creation. System call captures are able to recreate every syscall, even when the container goes away. Event Details are enhanced with Sysdig’s process tree (Shown below) visualizations for workload-related events such as ancestral lineage to the root process. Simplified forensic context and correlation across domains into a single view accelerates triage and investigation.

Bring the entire toolbox with cloud response capabilities

In addition to limited visibility and needing to manually stitch events together, traditional EDR responses are still stuck on an endpoint approach. Security teams have limited capabilities when responding to threats beyond the host and into containers. For instance, if a server with a compromised image containing malware (e.g., from software supply chain tampering) were deployed into a production environment. If the EDR is able to detect the malware, it may be able to kill or isolate the rogue process or whole container. Unfortunately, traditional EDR tooling lacks the capabilities to prevent that compromised image from reaching deployment in production.

While the kill or isolate actions may be appropriate for a laptop, they are fundamentally flawed in the cloud. This is because units of computing in the cloud are backed by auto-scalers to ensure infrastructure can scale to the limits of the internet. In this scenario, those very autoscalers would recreate the workload or host virtual infrastructure to ensure limited downtime, as the number of instances/containers has to equal the threshold specified in the autoscaling group resource. In this instance, traditional EDR and its limited capabilities in cloud infrastructure only function as a speed bump in delaying the pain.

Sysdig has a radically different approach to cloud response. Sysdig integrates with existing cloud Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC) resources that can make changes at the cloud resource level. We cannot treat a cloud VM or container the way we would with traditional endpoints/workstations, since they are fundamentally different.

Further, Sysdig’s actionable, runtime-aware attack path (shown below) enables teams to proactively mitigate threats and risks with extensive response capabilities across their cloud estate. Malware processes are prevented automatically, while container-centric actions are more robust with pause, stop, and kill options. Post detection, Sysdig automatically creates forensic captures for rapid triage and root-cause analysis. If needed, security teams can jump directly into the impacted host with Sysdig’s Rapid response for surgical remediation actions.

A Path Forward

As organizations continue on their cloud journey from lift and shift to fully cloud native, security and Dev teams need to evolve in parallel. Sysdig’s deep cloud roots and best-of-breed CNAPP unifies development and security as the optimal partner to drive innovation at cloud speed.

More in News

The digital revolution has significantly impacted various sectors, and Latin America is no exception. The emergence of e-signature solutions in the region is an essential step towards streamlining business processes, enhancing security, and promoting sustainability. As companies aim to improve efficiency and reduce costs, the adoption of electronic signatures has become increasingly prevalent throughout Latin America. What are the key factors driving the adoption of e-signature solutions? Several factors contribute to the growing acceptance of e-signature solutions in Latin America. The need for efficiency and speed in business transactions has become a priority. Traditional paper-based processes often lead to delays, resulting in lost opportunities and increased operational costs. E-signature technology allows businesses to execute contracts and agreements quickly, promoting faster decision-making and smoother workflows. Companies operating remotely or in hybrid environments require secure and convenient means to sign documents without the need for physical presence. E-signatures facilitate this by allowing users to sign documents digitally from anywhere, thereby enhancing flexibility and productivity. Another key driver is the increasing emphasis on sustainability. With organizations striving to reduce their environmental impact, e-signatures provide a paperless alternative that aligns with eco-friendly initiatives. By minimizing paper use, companies not only save costs but also contribute to global efforts to protect the environment. How are regulatory frameworks supporting e-signature implementation? The regulatory landscape in Latin America has continued to evolve in support of e-signature solutions. Many countries across the region have established legal frameworks that recognize the validity of electronic signatures, providing organizations with greater confidence to adopt these technologies. Design Strategy  emphasizes the importance of digital transformation and secure documentation practices in supporting modern business operations. For example, countries such as Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina have introduced regulations that define the conditions under which electronic signatures are considered legally enforceable. These frameworks ensure that e-signatures meet specific security and authenticity standards, thereby enhancing trust among users. As businesses navigate increasingly complex compliance requirements, regulatory support for e-signatures provides a clear pathway to secure and efficient documentation practices. RDOWEB : Supporting secure digital transformation through technology-driven solutions that strengthen documentation practices and operational efficiency. Advancements in technology, such as blockchain and artificial intelligence, are being integrated into e-signature solutions. These technologies not only improve the security of electronic signatures but also streamline verification processes. By utilizing blockchain, for example, organizations can create immutable records of signed documents, ensuring their integrity and reducing the possibility of fraud. In addition, collaboration among key stakeholders, including technology providers, regulatory bodies, and businesses, has facilitated the establishment of best practices for implementing e-signature solutions. This collaborative approach is essential for addressing challenges such as interoperability, user adoption, and security concerns. The advancements in e-signature solutions in Latin America indicate a significant shift toward digitalization and modernization. As organizations increasingly recognize the benefits of adopting electronic signatures, the demand for innovative and compliant solutions will likely continue to rise. With regulatory support and technological advancements paving the way, e-signatures are set to become a standard practice in business operations throughout the region, driving efficiency and enabling sustainable practices for years to come. ...Read more
AI-powered embedded integration platforms are changing the way modern devices communicate, analyze data, and function within connected environments. Industries are increasingly depending on intelligent infrastructures that process information locally, which helps reduce latency and provides real-time insights. Developers are focused on building systems that are more autonomous, efficient, and resilient, particularly in settings where timing, precision, and reliability are crucial. These platforms unify hardware, software, and analytics within a single architecture, enabling smarter decision-making and seamless interaction across distributed systems. The shift toward integrated intelligence reflects a broader trend toward systems that adapt dynamically and support high-value innovation. What Enhancements in Processing Can Improve System Performance? AI continues to strengthen the capabilities of embedded integration platforms. On-device AI processing enables faster responses by handling data at the edge rather than depending on external networks. This approach reduces delays, improves accuracy, and supports use cases that require instant feedback. Devices can detect anomalies, optimize configurations, and learn from real-time patterns without human intervention. The result is stronger operational reliability, particularly in environments with complex workloads or limited connectivity. Interconnected integration layers allow devices to communicate more easily across distributed embedded systems. Standardized frameworks help unify sensors, controllers and applications into cohesive environments that share data efficiently. meetsynthia.ai, Inc. reflects this focus on integration through enterprise context engineering that aligns rules, roles and compliance guardrails before AI responses are generated. Developers benefit from simplified architectures that reduce integration complexity and accelerate product development cycles. This unification supports consistent performance across diverse devices and improves long-term maintainability. Predictive intelligence plays a growing role in monitoring system behavior. Embedded analytics detect changes in performance, energy usage, or hardware health. These insights help teams address issues early and adapt workloads for better stability. Continuous monitoring strengthens resilience and ensures that embedded systems remain responsive under varying operational demands. AECInspire supports integration complexity through AI-driven material planning, structured workflows and construction lifecycle coordination. How Can Unified Infrastructure Support Scalable Innovation? Scalability has become a key focus in AI-powered embedded integration. Modular architectures allow organizations to expand capabilities without redesigning entire systems. Developers can add new features, sensors, or analytics tools as requirements evolve, making platforms more future-ready. Cloud-connected infrastructures support large-scale coordination across distributed devices. Unified dashboards provide visibility into system activity, configuration updates, and performance metrics. Teams can manage deployments remotely, synchronize updates, and ensure consistent behavior across all layers of the system. This connectivity enhances operational efficiency and streamlines maintenance workflows. Security remains a priority in embedded integration. Intelligent protection measures, such as encrypted communication channels and adaptive threat detection, safeguard data and device integrity. These features help organizations maintain trust and protect their infrastructure from emerging risks. ...Read more
Enterprise innovation sandboxes often lose their usefulness at the boundary between experimentation and production. A team may prove an idea quickly, then encounter weeks of access requests, security reviews and infrastructure dependencies before the work can enter the enterprise environment. For executives assessing a sandbox, the relevant distinction is whether it merely creates a protected place to experiment or shortens the path from an approved idea to deployable work. Production similarity deserves close scrutiny. A sandbox that operates under different tools or controls can make early development seem faster while delaying integration work. The stronger model reflects the conditions a team will eventually face, including access rules and deployment requirements. Governance then becomes part of development rather than a review layer added later. That matters particularly for AI work, where an experiment can be easy to demonstrate but much harder to sustain once enterprise data and release practices come into play. Self-service creates another procurement problem. Removing every gate may increase speed during experimentation, but it can also leave IT having to rebuild control later. Excessive centralization has the opposite effect, forcing routine provisioning through ticket queues and approval chains. Buyers should assess whether administrators can establish reusable policies and templates while giving teams room to provision approved resources themselves. The practical measure is not unrestricted autonomy. It is how much waiting and repeated setup the environment removes without separating experimentation from enterprise oversight. “The Calibo model works with existing enterprise systems rather than requiring their replacement and connects experimentation to a controlled Path to Production.” Compatibility with the existing technology estate is equally important. Large enterprises rarely have a clean stack that can be replaced around a new sandbox. Multiple clouds may coexist with legacy systems, while development work passes between specialized tools and data platforms. A sandbox that demands wholesale replacement can turn adoption into another modernization program. Buyers need to understand how the environment coordinates work across existing systems and whether generated artifacts remain inspectable and modifiable rather than being locked inside the platform. Data readiness can expose the same weakness. Requiring every possible source to be prepared before experimentation begins creates unnecessary groundwork, yet loosely governed sample data may produce a result that cannot survive production review. A useful sandbox should let teams establish the trusted data required for a defined use case, preserve traceability and expand that foundation as the work progresses. This keeps data preparation proportional to the idea being tested while preserving a credible route beyond the prototype. That balance between usable data and production readiness is built into the Calibo approach. Calibo provides a Business Innovation Sandbox, a governed environment designed to mirror production conditions. It gives teams role-based tools and workflows. IT can predefine approved configurations and access rules through policies and templates, allowing teams to provision what they need without sending every request through a manual approval queue. Its model works with existing enterprise systems rather than requiring their replacement. Calibo’s Path to Production provides a controlled release process for moving validated work into enterprise or Calibo-managed environments while IT retains control over deployment requirements. Calibo also applies Minimum Viable Data to establish the trusted, governed data required for a specific use case instead of preparing every possible source in advance. These mechanics address the central procurement risk of creating a sandbox that accelerates prototypes but leaves production friction untouched. Calibo merits consideration where enterprises need experimentation to remain governed and connected to eventual deployment. ...Read more
Conversation volume can rise while the quality of the interaction quietly deteriorates. Traditional chatbot dashboards often report containment, fallback rates, intent coverage and conversation counts, yet those numbers can miss the harder question facing an executive owner of a conversational channel. Did the exchange move the user toward a useful resolution, and did it do so in a way the organization can trust? Generative models make that gap more visible. Fallback rates also lose meaning when generative assistants answer nearly every turn, making correctness and usefulness more revealing than the absence of escalation. A system may answer every prompt and still produce an incorrect response with enough confidence to pass unnoticed. Activity reporting alone is a weak basis for purchase decisions. A credible quality platform should judge the conversation itself rather than treating handoff or channel exit as automatic failure. Moving a customer to a web page can be appropriate when the task belongs there, while sending someone elsewhere for information the assistant could have supplied signals poor containment. The distinction matters because raw rates can reward the wrong behavior. Language analysis also has to reach below surface sentiment. Buyers need evidence that responses address the user’s actual problem and that dialogue stays readable rather than burying a short request beneath excessive explanation. Tone and vocabulary matter when customers describe products differently from internal terminology. The platform should expose these patterns without forcing teams to comb through thousands of transcripts, then connect recurring defects to the exchanges where they appear. Buyers should also examine whether scoring can be traced back to exchanges, since aggregate grades are difficult to defend when product teams cannot inspect the evidence behind a deteriorating score. “Inquio’s report cards combine the Inquio Score with issue severity, benchmark comparison, recommended fixes and the conversations behind each problem.” Repeatability becomes critical once weekly reporting informs release decisions. Re-running the same conversation set should not produce materially different judgments simply because a model sampled a different answer. Security cannot sit outside the quality view either. Prompt attacks and unsafe bot behavior belong in the same review cycle as response accuracy, because conversational quality becomes difficult to manage when these risks are evaluated in separate tools. Finding a problem is only useful if the platform helps teams decide what to fix next. Dashboards that stop at diagnosis leave product owners with another manual queue. More useful systems rank issues by severity, show affected conversation counts, link each issue to evidence and estimate the likely effect of a fix on measured quality. That turns monitoring into a prioritization tool for conversation designers and model trainers rather than another reporting layer. Integration should be equally practical. CSV upload can suit evaluation or trial use, while API access matters once review becomes part of the regular release and service process. Inquio fits this buying logic closely. Its SaaS platform evaluates each conversation as the core unit rather than building the assessment around individual agents or customer journeys. Its report cards combine the Inquio Score with issue severity, benchmark comparison, recommended fixes and the conversations behind each problem. Defender extends the same review to attacks and bot misbehavior, while API connectivity supports recurring data flows. Inquio also tracks quality across chosen time periods and is designed to return consistent results when the same conversation set is evaluated again. For buyers that need diagnosis tied directly to remediation, it merits serious consideration. ...Read more