Certified: The GIAC GSLC Audio Course

In this episode, we focus on cloud clarity, because cloud programs fail in predictable ways when people make dangerous assumptions about who is responsible for what. Many incidents begin with a gap that was not malicious at first, but simply misunderstood, such as believing a provider handles access control, believing logging is automatic, or believing a managed service is secure by default. Cloud service models and shared responsibility are not abstract concepts; they directly determine which controls you must implement, which risks you must monitor, and which teams must respond when something goes wrong. If your organization cannot describe these boundaries clearly, you will have blind spots in identity, data protection, configuration management, and incident response. The goal is to make cloud responsibilities explicit enough that teams can build controls deliberately and act quickly during a crisis. Clarity also reduces internal friction, because it prevents the endless debate over whether a gap is the provider’s problem or your problem. When you understand the models and the boundary lines, you can invest in the right controls instead of arguing after an incident. Cloud clarity is one of the highest-leverage skills in modern security leadership, precisely because it prevents silent exposure from becoming a public event.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

To start, define the main cloud service models in plain business terms so everyone shares the same map. Infrastructure as a Service (I a a S) is where the provider supplies fundamental computing resources like virtual machines, storage, and networking, while you are responsible for what you build on top of them. Platform as a Service (P a a S) is where the provider supplies a managed platform, such as a database service or application runtime, and you focus on deploying applications and configuring the service rather than operating underlying servers. Software as a Service (S a a S) is where the provider delivers a complete application, and you consume it as a product, configuring settings and managing users rather than managing infrastructure or platform components. These definitions matter because each model shifts operational effort and security responsibility, and leaders must understand those shifts to govern risk. I a a S gives you the most control and therefore the most responsibility for hardening and patching. P a a S reduces your responsibility for underlying operations but still leaves you responsible for configuration, access, and data protection decisions. S a a S removes most infrastructure responsibility but places high importance on identity, configuration, data governance, and vendor assurance because the application itself is outside your direct control.

Shared responsibility is the principle that cloud providers secure parts of the stack, while customers secure the parts they control, and the boundary changes based on the service model. In I a a S, the provider typically secures the physical facilities, hardware, and core virtualization layer, while you secure operating systems, applications, network configurations, identity access, and data. In P a a S, the provider takes on more responsibility for the operating system and the managed platform components, such as database engines or runtimes, but you still control configuration choices, identity permissions, and how data is stored and accessed. In S a a S, the provider operates the application and platform entirely, but you still control your tenant configuration, user access, and how you govern and protect the data you place into the service. Shared responsibility is easy to recite and hard to operationalize, because teams often treat it as a slogan rather than as a concrete mapping of controls. The value comes when you can point to a specific control and name who owns it, who monitors it, and who responds if it fails. This is why examples matter, because examples turn the concept into operational reality. When shared responsibility is understood concretely, it stops being a debate and becomes a plan.

A practical way to internalize shared responsibility is to map responsibility for identity, data, and configuration, because these three areas are where cloud failures most often occur. Identity includes account provisioning, authentication requirements, privileged role assignments, and lifecycle management, and in almost every cloud model you retain substantial responsibility here. Data includes classification, access control policy, encryption decisions, retention, and backup expectations, and again, you typically retain responsibility for governing how data is used and protected even when the provider supplies encryption features. Configuration includes network exposure settings, service-level security settings, logging enablement, and alerting thresholds, and misconfiguration in these areas can create direct exposure regardless of the service model. Mapping responsibility means you decide who in your organization owns these controls, which teams implement them, and how they are verified. It also means identifying which controls are provided by the vendor and what you must configure to activate them, because many critical security features are optional and not enabled by default. The mapping should include monitoring and response responsibilities, because a control is incomplete if no one watches it and no one knows how to respond when it fails. When identity, data, and configuration ownership is clear, cloud security becomes manageable rather than mysterious.

Managed services are often where organizations develop blind spots, because the word managed creates an impression that security is handled automatically. In reality, managed services still require customer security decisions, especially around who can access the service, what network exposure exists, what data is stored, and what configuration choices control security posture. For example, a managed database service may patch the database engine, but you still decide whether it is publicly reachable, what identities can connect, what privileges they have, and whether logging and auditing are configured appropriately. A managed message queue may be operated by the provider, but you still decide who can publish and consume messages and whether messages contain sensitive data that needs special handling. A managed identity service may provide authentication capabilities, but you still decide how multi-factor authentication is enforced, how privileged access is controlled, and how identities are reviewed. These are not small decisions; they determine exposure and blast radius when mistakes happen. The provider can secure the platform, but it cannot choose your access model for you. This is why the safest approach to managed services is to assume you still own security outcomes and to treat vendor management as an additional layer, not a replacement. When teams understand this, they stop being surprised by incidents that occur in managed services.

A common pitfall is assuming the provider handles everything automatically, which leads to missing controls and delayed response during incidents. This pitfall often appears in logging, where teams assume that security logs are enabled and retained by default when in reality they may require explicit configuration and may have limited retention unless upgraded. It appears in identity, where teams assume default roles are safe or that service-to-service permissions are least privilege, when in reality defaults can be broad and convenient rather than safe. It appears in network exposure, where teams assume a managed endpoint is private because it is in a cloud environment, while configuration may expose it publicly. It also appears in incident response, where teams assume that the provider will detect and respond to suspicious activity inside the tenant, when in many cases the provider’s responsibility is platform availability and the customer must detect and respond within their own environment. The result is not only increased risk, but also slower remediation because teams realize the gap only after damage occurs. Avoiding this pitfall requires explicit mapping and verification rather than faith. Cloud security fails when assumptions replace checks.

A quick win that reduces blind spots immediately is documenting responsibilities per service you use, because the service-level detail is where shared responsibility becomes real. Rather than writing a general statement about responsibility, you document for each service what the provider commits to secure, what you must configure, and what you must monitor. This documentation should include identity responsibilities, data handling responsibilities, configuration responsibilities, logging responsibilities, and incident response roles. It should also include dependencies, such as whether the service integrates with your identity provider or whether it relies on network controls you must configure elsewhere. The documentation does not need to be long; it needs to be clear and actionable, ideally in a format teams can reference during design and incident response. The quick win comes from forcing clarity, because teams discover gaps as soon as they try to write down who owns what. That discovery often reveals missing controls that can be fixed quickly, such as enabling logging, tightening access roles, or restricting network exposure. Documentation also supports onboarding, because new staff can understand cloud responsibilities without tribal knowledge. When you document service-level responsibility, you create a foundation for consistent governance.

Now consider a scenario where a breach occurs and confusion blocks response decisions, which is a common failure pattern in cloud incidents. During an incident, teams need to act quickly, but they may hesitate if they are unsure whether the provider will intervene, whether the provider can provide evidence, or whether the customer must contain the issue within the tenant. Confusion can also exist about who internally has authority to disable access, rotate keys, isolate networks, or shut down services, especially in organizations with multiple cloud teams. If shared responsibility is unclear, teams may waste critical time contacting vendor support for actions that the customer must take, or they may fail to collect necessary evidence because they assume logs exist when they do not. In a well-prepared organization, the responsibility mapping provides an incident playbook: who does containment, who collects logs, who contacts the vendor, and what vendor commitments apply. The scenario also emphasizes that vendor support is valuable, but it is not a substitute for internal readiness. Clear contracts help, but contracts do not execute containment. When organizations rehearse this scenario, they often realize that cloud incident response requires both technical controls and governance clarity. The purpose of the rehearsal is to remove ambiguity before real damage is occurring.

Responsibilities should also be connected to contract language and vendor commitments, because the organization’s expectations must match what the vendor actually provides. Contract language can define service availability, security commitments, audit reports, incident notification timelines, data residency, retention, and support responsiveness. Leaders should ensure that internal responsibility mapping reflects these commitments so teams do not rely on capabilities that are not contractually provided. Vendor commitments also influence what monitoring you need, because if the vendor does not provide certain visibility, you must instrument it yourself. Contract alignment also affects risk decisions, such as whether a service can be used for sensitive data or high-impact workflows based on the vendor’s controls and assurances. In S a a S especially, contract and assurance artifacts often play a large role because you do not control the underlying application, and your main levers are configuration, identity, and vendor governance. This connection also matters during incidents, because the organization needs to know what evidence and support can be requested and what timelines apply. Contracts are not just legal documents; they are operational boundaries. When leaders connect shared responsibility to contracts, they reduce surprise and improve incident readiness.

A risk-based approach is how you prioritize cloud control investments without attempting to implement everything everywhere at once. Risk-based prioritization starts by identifying high-value assets, high-exposure services, and high-impact workflows, then focusing controls there first. Identity controls are often the highest leverage, such as multi-factor authentication, privileged access management, and continuous review of role assignments. Logging and monitoring are another high-leverage area, because you cannot respond quickly to what you cannot see. Network exposure controls, encryption settings, and configuration baselines also matter, especially for internet-facing services and data stores. Risk-based investment also considers how widely a service is used, because shared services create shared risk and shared failure modes. The goal is to spend effort where it reduces the most risk, rather than spreading effort thinly across low-impact areas. This approach also makes governance defensible, because leaders can explain why certain controls were prioritized based on exposure and business impact. Risk-based thinking keeps cloud security practical and sustainable. When teams know where to focus, they build stronger controls rather than a shallow veneer of compliance.

A memory anchor that remains useful across cloud vendors is provider secures cloud, you secure in cloud, because it captures the essential division without requiring memorization of every service detail. The provider secures the physical and foundational layers, ensuring the underlying infrastructure and platform availability and baseline security are maintained. You secure what you configure, including identity access, network exposure, data governance, and application behavior, because those elements reflect your choices and your risk appetite. The anchor is intentionally simple, but it is not simplistic, because it forces you to ask what in cloud means for each service you use. It also guards against the common mental shortcut that managed equals secure, which is rarely true without proper configuration. The anchor supports decision-making during incidents, because it reminds teams that even when the vendor is involved, customer-side actions are often required quickly. Over time, this anchor becomes a culture cue that reduces complacency. It is a simple phrase that helps teams avoid blind spots. When teams repeat it, they build the habit of checking configuration and ownership rather than assuming.

Cloud services and features change quickly, and shared responsibility must be revisited when those changes occur, because the boundary can shift in practice even if the model label remains the same. A service might introduce a new feature that changes data flows, adds a public endpoint option, modifies logging behavior, or adds new identity integration, all of which can change your risk posture. Your organization might also change how it uses a service, such as exposing a previously internal component to external users or integrating a new partner workflow. These changes can create new responsibilities or amplify existing ones, which means documentation and control baselines must be updated. This is why periodic review matters, because a responsibility map that was accurate at launch may be inaccurate after a year of feature growth. Review should be triggered by major service changes, major architectural changes, and major incidents, because these events reveal where the map no longer matches reality. Review should also include checking vendor commitments, because contract renewals and policy updates can change what the vendor provides. The goal is to keep shared responsibility alive, not to treat it as a one-time training topic. When organizations revisit responsibilities regularly, they reduce drift and maintain clarity.

As a mini-review, state one responsibility per model clearly to reinforce how the boundary shifts. In I a a S, you own operating system hardening and patching for your instances, along with identity permissions and network exposure decisions that control access. In P a a S, you own secure configuration and access control for the managed service, such as who can connect and how data is protected, even though the provider runs the underlying platform. In S a a S, you own tenant configuration and identity governance, meaning user lifecycle, role assignments, and data governance settings that determine what users can access and what is logged. These responsibilities are not exhaustive, but they are representative and practical, and they anchor teams in the reality that you always retain meaningful security obligations. The mini-review also reinforces that the model label is less important than the specific service and how it is configured. When teams can state these responsibilities quickly, they are less likely to be surprised during audits or incidents. Clarity here is a form of preparedness. It is a simple habit that prevents expensive mistakes.

To conclude, map one cloud service’s responsibilities today and treat it as the start of a repeatable practice rather than a one-off exercise. Choose a service that is widely used or high impact, and document what the provider secures, what you must configure, what you must monitor, and who owns each control internally. Include identity, data governance, configuration settings, logging, and incident response actions, because those areas determine real outcomes. Then connect the map to vendor commitments so expectations match contract reality, and identify the highest-risk gaps where investment will reduce exposure quickly. Finally, set a trigger to revisit the map when the service changes or when your usage changes, because drift is inevitable. This mapping exercise tends to reveal assumptions that have been quietly driving risk, and fixing those assumptions often yields immediate security improvements. When shared responsibility is explicit, teams move faster because they stop debating ownership and start implementing controls. Cloud clarity is not a theoretical skill; it is a daily operational advantage.