June 30, 2018
There is a widespread delusion that companies that switch to the public cloud are compelled to make concessions on safety. Although there have definitely been instances where firms have made errors that have resulted in the disclosure of data, it doesn’t mean the public cloud is not safe. Just like with on-premises IT solutions, it’s the duty of a firm to make sure proper safety measures are applied.
CloudHealth Technologies, the prominent supplier of cloud optimization and management solutions, has lately debunked a few of the legends regarding cloud security and has explained that instead of on-premises IT solutions being safer compared to public cloud placements, the opposite is correct. The public cloud can be safer compared to on-premises IT.
That opinion is shared by Vivek Kundra, the first national CIO of the United States, who worked between March 2009 and August 2011. Kundra wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times in which he described how his division applied a ‘cloud first’ policy in 2010 after learning the vast ineptitudes in the $80 billion national IT budget. In that piece, Kundra said, “Cloud computing is frequently far more safe than customary computing since firms like Amazon and Google can attract and keep cyber-security people of a higher quality than a lot of governmental organizations.”
Several firms are worried about safety in the public cloud and with good reason; nevertheless, it must not hold firms back and avoid them from attaining the numerous advantages that the cloud offers. In several instances, the reasons provided for not migrating to the cloud are not based on truths, but legends about public cloud safety.
One general legend is the lack of physical control over data makes data unsafe. Nevertheless, it’s not where data are positioned that is the difficulty, however, how they are safe. When data breaks occur, it is generally because of the lack of safety mechanisms in place, not since there are no suitable safety solutions available.
One more popular legend is that placing data in the public cloud implies cloud platform suppliers will access data. Nevertheless, if any cloud supplier was found to be doing that, it would abolish confidence in their business. That is just not something that a cloud platform supplier would do, though it’s easy to check by retrieving audit logs.
There is a usually held opinion that companies should select an expensive single-tenant private cloud to make sure safety, instead of using low-priced multi-tenant public clouds. Although it is definitely correct that private clouds offer outstanding perimeter safety, public clouds have rational content separation to avoid inside perimeter attacks.
There is also a usually held belief that there are more data breaks in the public cloud. Although it is correct that there have been remarkable data breaks in the public cloud, data breaks are now a fact of life no matter where data are kept.
CloudHealth Technologies points to a study run by a seller that decided that on-premises solutions were, in fact, more vulnerable to malware attacks and botnets compared to the public cloud. Further, an analysis of data breaks between August 2015 and January 2017 indicated that there were 405 safety occurrences at firms that were running solely in the cloud, with no main difference between Azure, AWS, and Google Cloud. Nevertheless, firms that solely ran on-premises infrastructures suffered 612 safety incidents.
“The real cause why you are running safer in the public cloud has very little to do with the safety of the public cloud,” wrote CloudHealth Technologies. “It has more to do with how IT administrators see the public cloud and take a higher level of safeguards to defend data by limiting access to it.”
That is an area where CloudHealth Technologies assists. By offering a platform that provides complete visibility of cloud-based resources and lets constant checking, IT administrators can easily recognize cloud safety dangers and take measures to proactively tackle those dangers and make sure their cloud deployments are correctly protected.