Abstract

Security has become one of the primary factors that cloud customers consider when they select a cloud provider for migrating their data and applications into the Cloud. To this end, the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) has provided the Consensus Assessment Questionnaire (CAIQ), which consists of a set of questions that providers should answer to document which security controls their cloud offerings support. In this paper, we adopted an empirical approach to investigate whether the CAIQ facilitates the comparison and ranking of the security offered by competitive cloud providers. We conducted an empirical study to investigate if comparing and ranking the security posture of a cloud provider based on CAIQ’s answers is feasible in practice. Since the study revealed that manually comparing and ranking cloud providers based on the CAIQ is too time-consuming, we designed an approach that semi-automates the selection of cloud providers based on CAIQ. The approach uses the providers’ answers to the CAIQ to assign a value to the different security capabilities of cloud providers. Tenants have to prioritize their security requirements. With that input, our approach uses an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to rank the providers’ security based on their capabilities and the tenants’ requirements. Our implementation shows that this approach is computationally feasible and once the providers’ answers to the CAIQ are assessed, they can be used for multiple CSP selections. To the best of our knowledge this is the first approach for cloud provider selection that provides a way to assess the security posture of a cloud provider in practice.

Highlights

  • Cloud computing has become an attractive paradigm for organisations because it enables “convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort [1]”

  • Aquia allows tenants to decide the location for data storage, enforces access control for tenants, cloud provider’s employees and subcontractors, monitors and logs all data accesses, classify data based on their sensitivity, and clearly defines the responsibilities of tenants, cloud providers and third parties with respect to data processing, while Capriza does not

  • If look the overall results, most of the participants (68%) were able to identify the correct cloud service provider based on the Consensus Assessments Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ), which indicates that CAIQ could be an effective tool to comparing and ranking the security posture of CSPs

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Cloud computing has become an attractive paradigm for organisations because it enables “convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort [1]”. Cloud customers are afraid of loosing control over their data and applications and of being exposed to data loss, data compliance and privacy risks. When it comes to select a cloud service provider (CSP), cloud customers evaluate CSPs first on security (82%), and data privacy (81%) and on cost (78%) [2]. This means that a cloud customer will more likely engage with a CSP that shows the best capabilities to fully protect information assets in its cloud service offerings. To identify the “ideal” CSP, a customer has first to assess and compare

Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.