The cloud is no longer merely a transition of infrastructure. It has fundamentally transformed the way we work, collaborate, and think about security. Among all these shifts, the most profound change security professionals feel may be the transition “from control to trust.” Everything is becoming more flexible, boundaries are fading, and security responsibilities are increasingly distributed. In this evolving landscape, how can organizations redefine their approach to cloud security governance? This article seeks to explore that question.
1. What Is Cloud Culture?
Cloud culture extends beyond technical adoption. It embodies rapid change, agile work practices, DevOps-based automation, self-service models, and decentralized authority.
In short, it signifies a shift from exclusive IT control to organization-wide technology engagement.
2. Security Risks Inherent in Cloud Culture
It is now commonplace for development teams to configure AWS IAM roles independently or for marketing departments to procure and use SaaS tools autonomously. The challenge arises when security teams are excluded from this process, reducing them to post-incident responders.
3. Limitations of Traditional Security Governance Models
In cloud migration, establishing a governance model tailored to the cloud should precede any implementation of security architecture.
1) Why We Need a New Security Governance Model
Traditional models are built on central control, approval workflows, network-based access controls, and on-premises physical security. These foundations face several limitations in the cloud era:
- Perimeter-Based Security Is Ineffective: Cloud assets transcend traditional network boundaries. VPNs and firewalls are no longer sufficient.
- Speed vs. Security: In a culture that values rapid deployment and experimentation, security is often seen as a hindrance. Security processes in CI/CD pipelines remain overlooked.
- Privilege Misuse and Unregulated Resource Creation: Without clear management of IAM policies and access rights, unintentional security incidents are likely.
- Unclear Accountability: The cloud introduces more stakeholders than legacy systems, complicating responsibility.
- Shadow IT: The proliferation of generative AI and the accessibility of SaaS tools worsen the shadow IT problem.
Shadow IT: IT assets used outside the control of the organization or security teams.
2) Why Shadow IT Is Particularly Dangerous
Shadow IT can occur anytime, especially in environments where internal and external networks are not segregated.
- Unauthorized Data Exposure: Employees may upload sensitive data to external platforms like Google Drive, Dropbox, or Notion, putting it beyond enterprise control.
- No Audit Trail: Without visibility into who used what services, incident investigation becomes difficult.
- Use of Non-Compliant Services: SaaS products that don’t meet security standards can increase the overall risk to the organization.
Example: A project team adopted Trello without approval instead of the designated tool (JIRA). Sensitive requirement documents were unintentionally shared via public links. The core issue wasn’t the freedom to choose tools, but the lack of governance to manage that autonomy.
4. Redefining Security Governance for the Cloud Era
The threats and limitations described above necessitate a new governance model that considers the full scope of cloud culture and environments. The following elements are key:
- Compensating Controls for Cultural Threats: In cloud-native DevOps, separation of duties is virtually impossible. Compensating strategies like DevSecOps must be adopted.
- Security as Code: Security checks should be automated in CI/CD pipelines. Tools like Terraform or CloudFormation help integrate security into infrastructure as code (IaC), embedding it directly into the development process.
- Expanded Resource Boundaries and Risk Planning: Governance must encompass cloud-specific assets. Users must recognize their ongoing responsibility for data security.
- Dynamic Account and Privilege Management: Cloud IAM settings change constantly. Start with minimum privileges and run regular audits using tools like AWS Access Analyzer or Azure PIM. Account provisioning should be process-driven and integrated with systems like HR databases.
- Continuous Awareness of External Parties: It is important to continuously monitor the roles and activities of cloud service providers (CSPs), managed service providers (MSPs), and third-party vendors. Even external vendors must be managed within the organization’s security governance framework, not treated as separate entities.
Final Thoughts
Security governance should not aim to control the cloud but to empower people to use the cloud securely and responsibly. Ultimately, governance is not just about technical enforcement—it is a cultural practice that ensures security is part of everyone’s daily work.
In an age where every team can adopt new technology, governance must evolve to embrace agility, visibility, and accountability rather than obstructing innovation. Security that adapts to the cloud culture will lead to organizations that are both resilient and future-ready.
References :
AWS Security Governance at Scale whitepaper –
https://aws.amazon.com/whitepapers/
Google Cloud Security Foundations guide –
https://cloud.google.com/architecture/framework?hl=ko