In my last post we looked at the structure of AWS IAM policies and looked at an example of a policy that was too broad. Let's look at a few more examples to explore how broad permissions can lead to security concerns. By far the most common form of broad permissions occurs when policies are scoped to a service but not to specific actions.

Security orchestration, automation and response (SOAR) tools are most commonly known for automating manual security operations processes in order to expedite security investigations or cyber response. For instance, Splunk’s SOAR technology, Splunk Phantom, is most commonly used to automate alert triage, phishing investigation and response, threat hunting and vulnerability management.

One of the focuses of version 2.9 of Icinga Web 2 will be on access control. For years on now, Icinga Web 2 had a very simple role based access control (RBAC) implementation. This suited most of our users fine. However, there were still some requests to enhance this further. The next major update of Icinga Web 2 (Version 2.9) and Icinga DB Web will allow users to configure exactly this.

Trying to work out the best security tool is a little like trying to choose a golf club three shots ahead – you don’t know what will help you get to the green until you’re in the rough. Traditionally, when people think about security tools, firewalls, IAM and permissions, encryption, and certificates come to mind. These tools all have one thing in common – they’re static.

Since the release of CVE-2020-8554 on GitHub this past December, the vulnerability has received widespread attention from industry media and the cloud security community. This man-in-the-middle (MITM) vulnerability affects Kubernetes pods and underlying hosts, and all Kubernetes versions—including future releases—are vulnerable. Despite this, there is currently no patch for the issue.