Cloud Security Standards & Frameworks

It’s a challenge to stay on top of the proliferation of cloud security standards and frameworks today. In this article, we’ll cover the crucial foundations of cloud security standards, like what they are, how they differ, and what benefits and drawbacks you’ll encounter when adopting any framework. We’ll also dig deeper into the challenges that emerge beyond the basics. What are the top frameworks’ overlaps and gaps? Should they be combined? And how do the frameworks apply to modern architectures? 

What are Cloud Security Standards and Frameworks: The Basics

Cloud security standards and frameworks provide structured guidelines and best practices to secure cloud environments, data, workloads, and configurations. The goal of frameworks is to standardize practices, build trust, reduce risk, and achieve compliance.

Frameworks can be grouped by their primary focus and origin:

1. Government and National Standards

• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Frameworks
  • Cybersecurity Framework (CSF): U.S. federal guidelines for security and risk management.
  • Special Publication (SP) 800-53: Comprehensive security and privacy controls.
  • Special Publication (SP) 800-144: Security for public cloud environments.

2. Industry Standards and Compliance

• Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS): Security requirements for organizations handling payment card data.
• Service Organization Control 2 (SOC 2): Standards for data privacy and security in service organizations.
• Control Objectives for Information and Related Technologies (COBIT): IT governance framework widely used across industries.

3. Technical and Hardening Guidelines

• Center for Internet Security (CIS) Benchmarks: Detailed technical controls for cloud providers and systems.
• Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Control Matrix (CCM): Security controls tailored to cloud environments.

4. Privacy-Focused Frameworks and Regulations

• International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 27018: Guidelines for cloud data privacy.
• General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): European Union regulation for data privacy.
• California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): California regulation for consumer data privacy.

5. Broad Organizational and Risk Management Frameworks

• International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 27001: Framework for information security management systems.
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF): Enterprise-wide risk management and resilience.

6. Cloud-Specific Frameworks

• Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Control Matrix (CCM): Comprehensive control set for cloud providers and users.
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 27017: Cloud-specific security guidelines.

There are also frameworks that don’t prescribe controls, like MITRE ATT&CK, which details ways attackers operate so organizations can build defensive strategies against them.

All frameworks outline what needs to be done, but they often lack practical guidance for implementing and maintaining security in dynamic, complex cloud environments.

Benefits and Challenges of Cloud Security Standards

Cloud security frameworks like CIS, NIST, and PCI DSS provide a solid foundation for organizations working to secure their environments and achieve compliance. They’re packed with detailed recommendations, checklists, and controls — but they’re far from plug-and-play solutions.

Though almost all organizations operate in the cloud, and many use cloud security frameworks, 60% acknowledge “significant” security gaps in their cloud infrastructures.

Frameworks set expectations but don’t do the heavy lifting. Organizations must tailor these guidelines to their specific cloud architectures, reckoning with multi-cloud security or the needs of hybrid-cloud architectures. They must also reconcile gaps between theory and practice and address challenges that frameworks alone can’t solve. Here are the core benefits that any framework provides, along with what organizations need to know to close the gaps.

Frameworks Give Organizations a Roadmap

Frameworks provide a structured roadmap for securing cloud-native architectures like Kubernetes, serverless, and containerized workloads.

Frameworks define the “what” but leave the “how” to organizations. Companies must operationalize these frameworks on their own, often starting with static guidelines and checklists. To succeed, they’ll need to implement automation for security checks, enforce policies consistently, and monitor for risks in real time. This requires significant investment in tools and expertise to bridge the gap between theory and practical application.

Frameworks Call for Static Audits in an Environment of Dynamic Change

Frameworks offer audit-ready standards that help organizations demonstrate compliance.

Frameworks assume periodic, static audits, but today’s cloud environments are highly dynamic, with workloads and configurations constantly shifting. Organizations must implement continuous compliance monitoring and real-time risk assessments to keep pace with their workloads. Without these proactive measures, frameworks like CIS Benchmarks or NIST SP 800-53 risk becoming outdated snapshots that can’t reflect the current security posture.

Frameworks Often Compartmentalize Security, While Companies Need a Unified Approach

Frameworks address specific areas of security — such as data protection, workload security, or configuration hardening — which can guide focused efforts.

Security frameworks tend to work in silos, while companies operate in interconnected multi-cloud environments that require unified visibility. To fill this gap, organizations must integrate tools that provide holistic insights, ensuring they can simultaneously identify misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and runtime threats across all their cloud assets.

Frameworks Set a Baseline, Not a Goal

Frameworks establish minimum standards for security, giving organizations a foundation to build on.

While frameworks ensure baseline protections, they often fail to address sophisticated, emerging threats like supply chain attacks or runtime anomalies. To move beyond compliance and achieve true security resilience, companies need proactive measures, such as advanced threat detection and runtime monitoring.

Frameworks are Individual, Companies Must Combine Them

Each framework focuses on a specific regulatory or operational area, helping organizations meet their own distinct compliance needs.

In reality, businesses often need to follow multiple frameworks simultaneously (e.g., CIS Benchmarks, NIST, and PCI DSS), which can result in overlapping or conflicting requirements. Companies must harmonize controls across frameworks, often by leveraging automation tools, to reduce operational overhead and demonstrate comprehensive compliance without duplicating their work.

Comparing Top Cloud Security Frameworks

Cloud security frameworks each serve a purpose, offering guidance on different aspects of security, compliance, and risk management. However, no single framework covers every need, so those looking to compare them should understand the individual strengths and limitations of each.

Let’s focus on 4 common cloud security frameworks:

• CIS Benchmarks are highly actionable, providing prescriptive hardening guidelines specific to major cloud providers like AWS, Azure, and GCP. They are the go-to framework for technical configuration and operational security in cloud-native environments.
• NIST SP 800-53 is one of the most comprehensive frameworks available, covering technical, procedural, and governance controls for federal systems and enterprises. It’s widely adopted across industries for risk management and compliance.
• ISO 27001 is a globally recognized standard for information security management systems, and ISO 27017 adds cloud-specific controls. 
• The CSA CCM is purpose-built for cloud environments, focusing on shared responsibility between cloud providers and customers, filling gaps in traditional frameworks by emphasizing SaaS and cloud-native security.

Framework	Purpose	Strengths	Challenges	Best For
CIS Benchmarks	Hardening cloud setups	Actionable, cloud-specific controls	Needs frequent updates	Cloud-native teams
NIST SP 800-53	Comprehensive controls	Broad, highly detailed	Overwhelming for some setups	Enterprises with diverse needs
ISO 27001/27017	Info security management	Globally recognized certification	Resource-intensive process	International operations
CSA CCM	Cloud-specific guidance	Strong on shared responsibility	Less prescriptive than CIS Benchmarks for configuration, but highly technical for mapping responsibilities	SaaS providers and multi-cloud users

Strengths and Weaknesses Explained

CIS Benchmarks provide actionable guidelines tailored for specific cloud providers, making them practical for cloud-native teams. They address critical security configurations quickly. However, framework updates are frequent, to align with cloud provider changes, requiring teams to stay current. CIS also focuses narrowly on configuration hardening, leaving gaps in broader governance.

NIST SP 800-53 offers a comprehensive set of controls for technical, procedural, and governance aspects, making it versatile for large, complex infrastructures. Yet the vast number of controls can be overwhelming, especially for organizations with fewer resources. Tailoring the framework to specific use cases can help, but it is time-consuming.

ISO 27001 is a globally recognized standard for information security management, with ISO 27017 adding cloud-specific guidance. Achieving certification requires demonstrating high-level security practices. But the certification process is lengthy, resource-intensive, and ongoing, which can be a challenge for smaller organizations or those with limited budgets.

CSA CCM  is designed specifically for cloud environments and excels at clarifying shared responsibilities between providers and consumers. It’s especially useful for SaaS providers. While excellent for responsibility allocation, it lacks the granular technical depth of frameworks like CIS, requiring additional tools for detailed implementation.

Overlaps and Gaps

These four frameworks each serve distinct roles in cloud security. Yet they share some commonalities while leaving critical gaps. 

CIS Benchmarks and CSA CCM focus heavily on cloud-native environments, providing actionable guidance for cloud configuration (CIS) and clarifying shared responsibilities between cloud providers and customers (CSA CCM). 

However, both lack the broader governance structure and enterprise-level depth of NIST SP 800-53 and ISO 27001/27017, which address organizational policies, risk management, and global regulatory needs. NIST SP 800-53 and ISO 27001/27017 overlap in their emphasis on comprehensive security controls, but NIST was created by a U.S. government agency (though with wide adoption abroad) and is highly detailed, whereas ISO offers globally recognized standards with a focus on certification. 

The differences between frameworks are useful for organizations looking for their own ideal framework. For example, CIS Benchmarks provide specific technical controls for hardening cloud environments, but they don’t address organizational policies or certification needs like ISO does. Similarly, while CSA CCM excels at detailing the shared responsibility model, it is less prescriptive than CIS or NIST in defining technical configurations. 

Considering multiple frameworks? Together, these frameworks can provide a layered approach: CIS and CSA CCM for practical cloud security, NIST SP 800-53 for comprehensive control mapping, and ISO 27001/27017 for governance and international compliance. The gaps highlight the importance of combining frameworks to achieve both technical and organizational security goals.

Approach to Cloud Architecture

The selected frameworks approach modern cloud architectures with varying degrees of alignment and specificity. 

CIS Benchmarks are the most directly applicable to modern cloud-native environments like Kubernetes, containers, and serverless architectures, offering provider-specific hardening guidelines for these dynamic setups. 

NIST SP 800-53, while comprehensive, was originally designed for traditional IT infrastructures and must be tailored for ephemeral workloads and continuous deployment models common in modern architectures. 

ISO 27001/27017 provides overarching governance and compliance structures. ISO 27017 has cloud-specific controls that could support modern architectures if paired with more technical frameworks like CIS.

In contrast, CSA CCM is purpose-built for the cloud, offering a clear shared responsibility model that helps organizations secure their use of Platform as a Service (PaaS), Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS). 

Together, the frameworks reveal the need to blend technical, operational, and governance strategies to address the complexities of modern cloud architectures effectively, but that can be difficult to balance while relying on a single framework.

Upwind Helps Operationalize Cloud Security Frameworks

No matter what organizational needs arise or which frameworks teams use, Upwind can help. Frameworks provide essential guidance, but operationalizing them in modern cloud environments requires real-time visibility and actionable insights. It facilitates alignment with benchmarks like CIS and NIST SP 800-53, and continuously monitors for risks in dynamic cloud-native environments such as Kubernetes and serverless architectures.

Want to see how you can simplify compliance and operationalize controls across frameworks and clouds? Get a demo.

FAQ

What is the difference between NIST and CSA?

NIST emerged from a U.S. government agency providing comprehensive frameworks for managing cybersecurity across industries, not just cloud environments. It focuses on governance, risk management, and security controls. It’s aimed at government organizations, contractors, and large enterprises with diverse architectures, and it is broader than CSA, covering governance and risk management beyond the cloud.

CSA emerged from a nonprofit organization specializing in cloud-specific security. Frameworks like its Cloud Control Matrix (CCM) are explicitly designed to address the shared responsibility model between cloud providers and customers. It’s ideal for organizations with cloud-native ecosystems, and it is more concise than NIST.

How do you implement a cloud security framework in an organization?

Implementing a cloud security framework doesn’t differ much from the implementation process for other business tools. Teams will want to engage stakeholders and users, build a case for a particular framework, ease the adoption process, and ensure they’re getting the use and outcomes they envisioned. Here are the steps:

• Assess Current Environment: Conduct a gap analysis and inventory assets.
• Choose Framework(s): Select frameworks like CIS, NIST, ISO, or CSA based on goals.
• Tailor Policies: Customize guidelines to fit your architecture and priorities.
• Automate Controls: Use tools like CSPM, CNAPPs, and CI/CD integrations.
• Monitor Continuously: Implement real-time monitoring and regular audits.
• Train Teams: Ensure stakeholders understand framework requirements.
• Evolve Regularly: Update for new threats, changes in infrastructure, and framework revisions.

What is cloud security management?

In the context of cloud security frameworks, cloud security management involves the practical implementation and operationalization of framework controls across an organization’s cloud environments. 

While frameworks like CIS, NIST, and CSA provide the guidelines for securing cloud systems, cloud security management focuses on applying, monitoring, and maintaining those controls to address real-world risks and threats. And while framework-driven management is one part of overall cloud security management, general security operations necessarily expand beyond that focus.