There are pros and cons to implementing automated remediation of risks in cloud infrastructure. Doing so can result in faster response times and reduced impact of incidents, consistent enforcement of security policies, and reduced workload for your IT or security team. However, it can cause problems if not implemented carefully. There are many factors to consider when deciding on whether or not to implement automated remediation of risks in cloud infrastructure.
The first aspect to consider is the severity of the risk. If the risk is critical or high, automated remediation can be a good or even a vital choice. By contrast, a low or moderate risk may not require automated remediation.
Obviously, the potential for impact on business is central to the decision and is connected to the preceding aspect. A high-risk threat could have significant repercussions on business processes and availability and, therefore, justify automating remediation.
Another factor to take into account is the complexity of remediation. Simple remediation, something straightforward that can easily be automated, may make for a good candidate for automation. Complex fixes, on the other hand, may cause unexpected downtime. Sometimes, manual intervention is actually the best option. Also, what constitutes a "simple" fix may depend on your environment and the situation. A change to a configuration setting may be technically simple, but could have unintended consequences.
Cost is, of course, a part of the equation as well, and needs careful analysis. Implementing automated remediation can require a significant investment in time and resources, but could save even more down the road when your security team does not have to deal with a security issue that has been fixed automatically. Another piece of the puzzle is that automated remediation should only be carried out after thorough testing and validation of the tools and scripts involved and there is a cost to that. And, because of the potential for unexpected changes, it may require closer or more frequent monitoring of your environment.
Another element to examine is regulatory compliance: If your industry or organizations is subject to compliance requirements, you should look into whether automated remediation is necessary for or, possibly, counter to, those requirements.
Other issues to take into account include potential loss of transparency, meaning that auto remediation can make it difficult to understand, when looking back, why certain actions were taken and more difficult to diagnose and resolve problems. In addition, automation doesn't take into consideration the particular circumstances of each incident. The human touch may be better informed. Also, if you have implemented infrastructure as code, automatic remediation can cause differences in the infrastructure as defined by your IaC templates and the actual implementation of infrastructure in the environment.
There is a lot to analyze when considering automated remediation.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM). Updated: April 2024.
CSPM solutions help organizations identify and remediate security risks and compliance challenges within cloud environments. CSPM tools use automated scans to identify potential security issues, and then provide recommendations for remediation.
There are pros and cons to implementing automated remediation of risks in cloud infrastructure. Doing so can result in faster response times and reduced impact of incidents, consistent enforcement of security policies, and reduced workload for your IT or security team. However, it can cause problems if not implemented carefully. There are many factors to consider when deciding on whether or not to implement automated remediation of risks in cloud infrastructure.
The first aspect to consider is the severity of the risk. If the risk is critical or high, automated remediation can be a good or even a vital choice. By contrast, a low or moderate risk may not require automated remediation.
Obviously, the potential for impact on business is central to the decision and is connected to the preceding aspect. A high-risk threat could have significant repercussions on business processes and availability and, therefore, justify automating remediation.
Another factor to take into account is the complexity of remediation. Simple remediation, something straightforward that can easily be automated, may make for a good candidate for automation. Complex fixes, on the other hand, may cause unexpected downtime. Sometimes, manual intervention is actually the best option. Also, what constitutes a "simple" fix may depend on your environment and the situation. A change to a configuration setting may be technically simple, but could have unintended consequences.
Cost is, of course, a part of the equation as well, and needs careful analysis. Implementing automated remediation can require a significant investment in time and resources, but could save even more down the road when your security team does not have to deal with a security issue that has been fixed automatically. Another piece of the puzzle is that automated remediation should only be carried out after thorough testing and validation of the tools and scripts involved and there is a cost to that. And, because of the potential for unexpected changes, it may require closer or more frequent monitoring of your environment.
Another element to examine is regulatory compliance: If your industry or organizations is subject to compliance requirements, you should look into whether automated remediation is necessary for or, possibly, counter to, those requirements.
Other issues to take into account include potential loss of transparency, meaning that auto remediation can make it difficult to understand, when looking back, why certain actions were taken and more difficult to diagnose and resolve problems. In addition, automation doesn't take into consideration the particular circumstances of each incident. The human touch may be better informed. Also, if you have implemented infrastructure as code, automatic remediation can cause differences in the infrastructure as defined by your IaC templates and the actual implementation of infrastructure in the environment.
There is a lot to analyze when considering automated remediation.