Cloud, Containers and IaC Security Review

This service evaluates how securely cloud infrastructure and cloud-native workloads are configured and deployed. It can be performed before release, after an architecture change, during a security improvement programme or as part of a wider cybersecurity assessment.

The objective is practical: find security weaknesses, understand their impact and provide clear remediation priorities. Rather than treating cloud, containers, Kubernetes and Infrastructure-as-Code as separate topics, the review considers how they interact.

For example, a permissive identity role may create significantly greater risk when combined with an exposed workload or an overprivileged Kubernetes service account.

1. Identity and Access Management Security

The review examines user, service and workload permissions to identify excessive privileges, unnecessary administrative access, weak role design, risky trust relationships, unused access paths and other identity and access-management weaknesses.

The goal is to support least-privilege access: people and systems should receive only the permissions required for legitimate tasks. Reviews may also consider privileged accounts, service identities, access boundaries and authentication controls relevant to the agreed scope.

Strong identity management is fundamental to cloud security because permissions determine which users and workloads can access, modify or administer important resources.

2. Exposed Services and Network Configuration

Cloud services can become unintentionally reachable from the internet or from network segments that should not have access.

The review checks relevant exposure points, firewall or security-group rules, network paths, ingress and egress controls, load-balancing configurations and network-segmentation decisions.

For Kubernetes environments, network policies and workload communication rules are reviewed where applicable. The aim is to identify unnecessary connectivity and reduce paths that could be used to reach sensitive systems or move between workloads.

3. Storage, Secrets and Data Protection

The review looks for insecure storage access, unintended public exposure, weak permissions, inappropriate handling of credentials and missing protection controls where they are relevant.

Kubernetes secrets, cloud secret-management mechanisms and infrastructure configurations should be managed so sensitive values are not unnecessarily exposed in source code, configuration files, logs or deployment artifacts.

Findings are prioritised according to the potential effect on confidentiality, integrity and service availability.

4. Container Image Security

Container images can introduce vulnerable components, outdated packages, unsafe defaults or unnecessary software into production.

The review evaluates container-image security practices and, where included in the agreed scope, relevant images themselves.

Typical areas include:

• Known software vulnerabilities
• Base-image selection
• Unnecessary packages and components
• Root-user execution
• Privileged container settings
• Exposed credentials or secrets
• Image provenance and integrity
• Deployment security controls

The objective is not simply to produce a long vulnerability list. Findings should help teams understand which weaknesses create meaningful deployment risk and which issues should receive priority.

Official Kubernetes guidance recommends scanning container images before deployment, avoiding unnecessary privileges, using non-root execution where appropriate and validating image provenance.

5. Kubernetes Configuration Security

Kubernetes gives engineering teams flexible control over workloads, identities, networking and deployment behaviour. That flexibility can create risk when permissions or workload configurations are broader than necessary.

A Kubernetes security review can examine:

• Role-Based Access Control
• Service accounts
• Pod security settings
• Privileged containers
• Privilege-escalation settings
• Linux capabilities
• Secret handling
• Network policies
• Container-image controls
• Relevant namespace and cluster configurations

Security recommendations should reflect the actual workload, architecture and business context rather than applying a one-size-fits-all checklist. Kubernetes itself notes that security controls need to be evaluated according to the requirements of each environment.

6. Infrastructure-as-Code Security

Infrastructure-as-Code makes infrastructure repeatable and easier to manage, but insecure configurations can also be repeated automatically.

The review assesses relevant infrastructure templates, Kubernetes manifests, configuration definitions and other infrastructure code included within the agreed scope.

The assessment looks for areas such as:

• Insecure default configurations
• Excessive permissions
• Publicly exposed services
• Risky network rules
• Unprotected storage
• Hard-coded secrets
• Deployment configurations that weaken security

Reviewing Infrastructure-as-Code before deployment helps teams address problems at their source rather than repeatedly correcting the same security issue after infrastructure has been created.

OWASP guidance similarly recommends integrating security controls and security review into the Infrastructure-as-Code lifecycle.

Cloud-native security works best when security checks become part of normal engineering work rather than an activity performed only at the end of a project.

As a practical baseline, organisations should:

• Define clear ownership. Know who is responsible for cloud accounts, Kubernetes clusters, container images and infrastructure repositories.
• Apply least privilege. Limit permissions for human users, service accounts and automated workloads.
• Reduce public exposure. Only expose services and ports that have a clear operational requirement.
• Control network communication. Restrict connectivity to required paths between applications, services and environments.
• Protect secrets properly. Avoid placing credentials, tokens and confidential values directly in source code or ordinary configuration.
• Scan container images before deployment. Review images again as new vulnerabilities become known.
• Minimise workload privileges. Avoid privileged containers and unnecessary operating-system capabilities.
• Use Kubernetes security controls. Apply workload, identity, network and secret-management controls appropriate to application sensitivity.
• Review IaC changes before deployment. Use version control, peer review and suitable security checks.
• Assign remediation owners. Every important finding should have a clear owner and expected corrective action.
• Verify critical fixes. Security issues should not be considered resolved simply because a configuration change was requested.
• Review major changes again. Architecture, identity, network and deployment changes can introduce new exposure.

These controls align with current guidance covering Kubernetes workload hardening, image security, access control, secrets protection, network restrictions and secure Infrastructure-as-Code practices.

A review can be particularly valuable:

• Before a production launch
• After a significant cloud migration
• When introducing Kubernetes or containerised workloads
• Following major IAM or permission changes
• Before an important customer security assessment
• Before or during a compliance-readiness project
• After significant architecture changes
• When security teams need an independent view of cloud-native risk

A review can also be performed after release to identify configuration drift, inherited weaknesses or security gaps that were not visible during development.

The scope should focus on systems and workloads that matter most to the organisation rather than treating every resource as having the same level of risk.

A useful cloud security assessment should turn technical findings into clear business and engineering decisions.

Depending on scope, outputs may include:

• An executive-level summary
• Technical findings with supporting evidence
• Risk prioritisation
• Affected systems or configurations
• Practical remediation guidance
• Recommendations for improving deployment controls
• Retesting of important findings after remediation

This gives engineering, DevOps, cybersecurity, product and compliance teams a common view of what requires attention, why it matters and what should happen next.

ComplyMarket provides cybersecurity testing that already covers cloud misconfigurations, container and Kubernetes security, and cloud and network penetration testing. Its current cybersecurity service also describes structured reporting with technical evidence, prioritised risks, remediation guidance and optional retesting after fixes.

Depending on the agreed objective and scope, ComplyMarket can support organisations by helping to:

• Define the systems and configurations to be assessed
• Review relevant cloud and cloud-native environments
• Identify security weaknesses and deployment risks
• Document risk-rated findings
• Provide practical remediation guidance
• Retest important findings after corrective actions
• Connect cybersecurity work with relevant product-compliance or technical-documentation activities

ComplyMarket also publicly positions its cybersecurity work alongside product compliance, supplier data management and regulatory documentation support. This can be particularly relevant where cloud services or remote processing components support connected products, software or other digital systems.

The result is a practical security review designed to help teams understand cloud-native risk, prioritise remediation and improve deployment confidence without turning the assessment into an abstract compliance exercise.