Cloud Security Posture Assessment#

Cross-cloud security posture assessment for evaluating IAM policies, encryption configuration, and public exposure across [AWS], [Azure], and [GCP] environments. This skill provides a unified assessment methodology — diagnostic reasoning is provider-independent, while specific commands and console paths use inline provider labels.

This is an assessment skill, not a deep-dive into any single provider's networking layer. For detailed VPC, VNet, or VPC Network analysis, use the dedicated provider skills: aws-networking-audit for VPC/Security Group/Transit Gateway, azure-networking-audit for VNet/NSG/Route Table, and gcp-networking-audit for VPC Network/Firewall Rule/Cloud Router analysis. Reference references/cli-reference.md for multi-provider CLI commands organized by audit step, and references/security-controls.md for the IAM hierarchy model, encryption matrix, and CIS benchmark control ID mapping.

When to Use#

• Multi-cloud security review — assessing posture across two or more cloud providers in a single engagement
• Pre-compliance audit — evaluating IAM, encryption, and exposure gaps before formal CIS or SOC 2 assessment
• Cloud migration security gate — verifying security controls are in place before production traffic cutover
• Incident response scoping — quickly determining cross-cloud exposure surface during a security event
• Periodic posture check — scheduled assessment of IAM hygiene, encryption coverage, and public attack surface
• Merger or acquisition due diligence — evaluating cloud security maturity across inherited environments

Prerequisites#

• [AWS] AWS CLI v2 configured ( aws sts get-caller-identity succeeds); IAM permissions for iam:List*, iam:Get*, kms:List*, kms:DescribeKey, s3:GetBucketEncryption, s3:GetBucketPolicyStatus, ec2:DescribeSecurityGroups, ec2:DescribeInstances, elasticloadbalancing:DescribeLoadBalancers, rds:DescribeDBInstances, acm:ListCertificates
• [Azure] Azure CLI ( az account show succeeds); RBAC Reader role on target subscriptions; permissions for Microsoft.Authorization/roleAssignments/read, Microsoft.KeyVault/vaults/read, Microsoft.Compute/disks/read, Microsoft.Network/publicIPAddresses/read, Microsoft.Network/networkSecurityGroups/read, Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts/read
• [GCP] gcloud CLI configured ( gcloud auth list shows active account); roles roles/iam.securityReviewer, roles/cloudkms.viewer, roles/compute.viewer, roles/storage.admin (for bucket IAM inspection) on target project(s)
• Target scope identified — cloud accounts/subscriptions/projects, regions, and environment tier (prod, staging, dev) defined before assessment begins
• Assessment window — coordinate with operations to avoid snapshot timing during deployments or maintenance windows

Procedure#

Follow these six steps sequentially. Each step produces findings that feed the cross-cloud posture summary in Step 6.

Step 1: IAM Posture Assessment#

Evaluate identity and access management configuration for privilege escalation risks, excessive permissions, and policy hygiene across all in-scope providers. Focus on three areas: overly permissive policies, missing authentication controls, and privilege escalation paths through role chaining or impersonation.

[AWS] Enumerate IAM users, roles, and policies. Check for wildcard actions in customer-managed policies:

text

aws iam get-account-authorization-details --output json
aws iam list-policies --scope Local --query 'Policies[?AttachmentCount>`0`]'

Flag policies with "Action": "*" or "Resource": "*" as Critical. Review Service Control Policies (SCPs) in Organizations for boundary gaps that allow privilege escalation paths (e.g., iam:CreateRole + iam:AttachRolePolicy without SCP deny). Check for IAM users with console access but no MFA: aws iam get-credential-report.

[Azure] Audit RBAC role assignments and Entra ID configuration:

text

az role assignment list --all --output table
az ad user list --query "[?userType=='Member']" --output table

Identify Owner/Contributor role sprawl — assignments at subscription scope with no expiration indicate missing Privileged Identity Management (PIM) activation policies. Review Conditional Access policies for gaps: no policy covering all users, missing device compliance requirements, or legacy authentication protocols not blocked.

[GCP] Analyze IAM bindings and Organization Policy constraints:

text

gcloud projects get-iam-policy <project-id> --format=json
gcloud resource-manager org-policies list --project=<project-id>

Flag bindings with roles/owner or roles/editor on service accounts as Critical. Check for service account key age exceeding 90 days: gcloud iam service-accounts keys list --iam-account=<sa-email>. Verify Organization Policy constraints enforce iam.disableServiceAccountKeyCreation where applicable.

Step 2: Encryption Audit#

Assess encryption at rest and in transit across storage, compute, and database services. Evaluate key management practices including rotation schedules, access policies, and customer-managed vs provider-managed key usage.

[AWS] Verify KMS key policies, storage encryption, and certificate management:

text

aws kms list-keys --output table
aws s3api get-bucket-encryption --bucket <bucket-name>
aws rds describe-db-instances --query 'DBInstances[*].[DBInstanceIdentifier,StorageEncrypted,KmsKeyId]'

Check EBS volume encryption: aws ec2 describe-volumes --query 'Volumes[?!Encrypted]'. Review ACM certificate expiry: aws acm list-certificates --query 'CertificateSummaryList[?Status== ISSUED ]'. Flag any unencrypted S3 buckets, EBS volumes, or RDS instances as High severity. Verify KMS key rotation is enabled for customer-managed keys: aws kms get-key-rotation-status --key-id <key-id>.

[Azure] Audit Key Vault configuration, disk encryption, and TLS:

text

az keyvault list --output table
az disk list --query "[?encryption.type!='EncryptionAtRestWithPlatformKey']" --output table

Verify Key Vault access policies follow least privilege — no vault with "Get, List, Set, Delete" for all principals. Check managed disk encryption type (platform-managed vs customer-managed keys). Review TLS minimum version on App Services: az webapp list --query "[].{name:name, minTlsVersion:siteConfig.minTlsVersion}".

[GCP] Assess Cloud KMS configuration and default encryption:

text

gcloud kms keyrings list --location=<location>
gcloud kms keys list --keyring=<keyring> --location=<location>

Determine CMEK vs Google-managed encryption per service. Flag any Cloud Storage buckets or Compute disks without CMEK if the organization policy requires it. Check KMS key rotation period: gcloud kms keys describe <key> --keyring=<keyring> --location=<location>. Verify SSL policy compliance on load balancers: gcloud compute ssl-policies list.

Step 3: Public Exposure Detection#

Identify publicly accessible resources and evaluate network-level exposure across all three providers. Public exposure combined with weak authentication (Step 1) or missing encryption (Step 2) compounds severity — cross-reference findings when classifying risk.

[AWS] Check for public S3 buckets, permissive Security Groups, and load balancer configuration:

text

aws s3api list-buckets --query 'Buckets[*].Name' --output text
aws s3api get-bucket-policy-status --bucket <bucket-name>
aws ec2 describe-security-groups --filters "Name=ip-permission.cidr,Values=0.0.0.0/0"

Flag Security Groups allowing 0.0.0.0/0 ingress on non-standard ports as Critical. Check ELB access logging: aws elbv2 describe-load-balancer-attributes --load-balancer-arn <arn> --query 'Attributes[?Key== access_logs.s3.enabled ]'.

[Azure] Identify public IPs without network security controls:

text

az network public-ip list --output table
az network nsg list --output table
az storage account list --query "[].{name:name, publicAccess:allowBlobPublicAccess}"

Flag public IPs with no associated NSG as High severity. Check storage account public access settings — allowBlobPublicAccess: true requires justification. Verify Application Gateway WAF mode is "Prevention" not "Detection" for production workloads.

[GCP] Detect public firewall rules and external load balancer exposure:

text

gcloud compute firewall-rules list --filter="sourceRanges:0.0.0.0/0" --format=table
gcloud compute forwarding-rules list --filter="loadBalancingScheme=EXTERNAL"

Flag firewall rules with 0.0.0.0/0 source range on non-443/80 ports as Critical. Check Cloud Storage public access: gsutil iam get gs://<bucket> and look for allUsers or allAuthenticatedUsers bindings. Verify external load balancer backends are intentionally public.

Step 4: Network Security Cross-Reference#

Delegate deep network security analysis to the dedicated provider networking skills. This step connects posture findings to network architecture context and ensures that infrastructure-level controls complement the identity and data protection evaluated in Steps 1–3.

• [AWS] Run aws-networking-audit for VPC CIDR design, Security Group rule-by-rule analysis, Transit Gateway topology, VPC Flow Log forensics, and Route Table validation
• [Azure] Run azure-networking-audit for VNet architecture, NSG effective rules, Route Table/UDR analysis, Network Watcher diagnostics, and Service Endpoint/Private Link coverage
• [GCP] Run gcp-networking-audit for VPC Network design, hierarchical firewall policy analysis, Cloud Router/BGP configuration, VPC Flow Log analysis, and Cloud NAT verification

Correlate findings: IAM misconfigurations (Step 1) combined with permissive network rules (this step) represent compounded risk. A service account with roles/editor behind a firewall rule allowing 0.0.0.0/0 is more urgent than either finding alone. Document cross-references between posture findings and network architecture gaps in the final report.

Step 5: Compliance Mapping#

Map findings to compliance framework controls. Reference CIS benchmark control IDs for provider-specific checks and SOC 2 criteria for organizational controls. This step transforms technical findings into auditor-consumable evidence.

CIS Cloud Benchmark References (control IDs for audit mapping):

• [AWS] CIS AWS Foundations Benchmark — Section 1 (IAM), Section 2 (Storage/Logging), Section 3 (Monitoring), Section 4 (Networking), Section 5 (Compute)
• [Azure] CIS Azure Foundations Benchmark — Section 1 (IAM), Section 2 (Microsoft Defender), Section 3 (Storage), Section 4 (Database), Section 5 (Logging), Section 6 (Networking), Section 7 (VM), Section 8 (Key Vault)
• [GCP] CIS GCP Foundations Benchmark — Section 1 (IAM), Section 2 (Logging/Monitoring), Section 3 (Networking), Section 4 (VM), Section 5 (Storage), Section 6 (Cloud SQL), Section 7 (BigQuery)

Map each finding to the applicable CIS section and control number. See references/security-controls.md for the full control ID index.

SOC 2 Control Mapping — Map infrastructure findings to Trust Services Criteria: CC6 (Logical and Physical Access Controls) for IAM and network exposure findings, CC7 (System Operations) for encryption and monitoring gaps.

Severity Classification — Critical: exploitable public exposure or admin-level privilege escalation. High: unencrypted sensitive data or overly permissive IAM. Medium: missing logging, stale credentials, or suboptimal encryption key management. Low: configuration drift from best practice without direct exploit path.

Step 6: Cross-Cloud Posture Report#

Compile findings into a structured cross-cloud posture report with provider-by-provider comparison and prioritized remediation actions.

Provider Comparison Matrix — Tabulate findings by domain (IAM, encryption, exposure) and provider. Identify which provider has the strongest/weakest posture per domain. Flag any provider that lacks coverage for a domain (e.g., no encryption at rest audit completed for GCP). Note configuration parity gaps — if AWS enforces MFA but Azure does not require Conditional Access, the inconsistency itself is a finding.

Prioritized Remediation — Rank all findings by severity, then by blast radius (multi-provider issues first). Group remediation actions by provider to enable parallel workstreams. Estimate effort for each remediation (quick fix vs project-level change). Identify quick wins: enabling encryption defaults, rotating stale keys, and restricting overly permissive firewall rules typically resolve 30–50% of findings with minimal change risk.

Executive Summary — Overall posture score per provider (Critical/ High/Medium/Low finding counts), cross-cloud consistency assessment, top 5 priority remediations, and recommended reassessment timeline. Include trend data if prior assessments exist — improving or degrading posture per domain.

Threshold Tables#

DomainSeverityConditionExampleIAMCriticalWildcard admin policy without SCP boundary"Action": "*", "Resource": "*"IAMHighService account/user with no MFA and console accessAWS IAM user, Azure member without CAIAMMediumService account key age >90 days[GCP] key rotation overdueIAMLowUnused IAM role with permissions attachedRole with 0 last-used dateEncryptionCriticalUnencrypted database with sensitive dataRDS, Azure SQL, Cloud SQLEncryptionHighUnencrypted storage bucket/volumeS3, Blob Storage, Cloud StorageEncryptionMediumCustomer-managed key rotation >365 daysKMS, Key Vault, Cloud KMSEncryptionLowPlatform-managed keys where CMEK policy existsOrg policy violationExposureCriticalPublic access on 0.0.0.0/0 non-web portsSSH/RDP open to internetExposureHighStorage bucket publicly accessibleS3, Blob, GCS with allUsersExposureMediumLoad balancer without access loggingALB, App Gateway, Cloud LBExposureLowWAF in detection mode (not prevention)[Azure] App Gateway WAF

Decision Trees#

text

Cloud Posture Assessment Scoping:
├─ Single provider? → Use dedicated provider skill (aws/azure/gcp-networking-audit)
├─ Multiple providers? → Use this skill for cross-cloud posture assessment
│  ├─ All 3 providers in scope? → Full procedure (Steps 1–6)
│  ├─ 2 providers? → Skip provider-specific checks for absent provider
│  └─ Compliance required? → Include Step 5 mapping
└─ Provider deep-dive needed? → Cross-reference to dedicated skill (Step 4)

Finding Severity Assignment:
├─ Exploitable from internet with no authentication? → Critical
├─ Data exposure or privilege escalation path? → High
├─ Missing logging or stale credentials? → Medium
└─ Configuration drift without exploit path? → Low

IAM Escalation Path Detection:
├─ User/role can create new roles? → Check SCP/org policy boundary
│  ├─ No boundary? → Critical — unbounded privilege escalation
│  └─ Boundary exists? → Verify deny rules cover CreateRole + AttachPolicy
├─ Service account can impersonate other accounts? → High
└─ Cross-account trust allows external principals? → High

Report Template#

markdown

# Cloud Security Posture Assessment Report

## Executive Summary
- **Assessment scope:** [AWS accounts / Azure subscriptions / GCP projects]
- **Assessment date:** [date]
- **Overall posture:** [Critical/High/Medium/Low finding summary]

## Provider Comparison Matrix
| Domain     | AWS        | Azure      | GCP        |
|------------|------------|------------|------------|
| IAM        | [findings] | [findings] | [findings] |
| Encryption | [findings] | [findings] | [findings] |
| Exposure   | [findings] | [findings] | [findings] |
| Network    | [ref: provider skill] | [ref: provider skill] | [ref: provider skill] |

## Findings by Severity

### Critical
| # | Provider | Domain | Finding | CIS Control | Remediation |
|---|----------|--------|---------|-------------|-------------|

### High
| # | Provider | Domain | Finding | CIS Control | Remediation |
|---|----------|--------|---------|-------------|-------------|

### Medium / Low
[Grouped table for lower-severity findings]

## Remediation Roadmap
1. [Immediate — Critical findings, estimated effort]
2. [Short-term — High findings within 30 days]
3. [Medium-term — Medium findings within 90 days]

## Appendix
- Provider-specific networking audit references
- Full CIS control mapping table
- Evidence collection inventory

Troubleshooting#

Insufficient permissions on one provider — If credential checks fail for a single provider ( aws sts get-caller-identity, az account show, or gcloud auth list), proceed with available providers and document the gap. Partial assessments are valuable — note "Provider X not assessed" in the comparison matrix.

Cross-account or cross-subscription enumeration failures — Multi- account AWS environments require assume-role chains; multi-subscription Azure requires Reader on each subscription. If enumeration returns empty results, verify role trust policies and subscription RBAC before assuming clean posture.

Large-scale environments — For environments with 50+ accounts or subscriptions, sample-based assessment is acceptable. Prioritize production accounts, internet-facing workloads, and accounts with external trust relationships. Document sampling methodology and coverage percentage in the report. Consider using cloud-native aggregation tools ([AWS] Security Hub, [Azure] Defender for Cloud, [GCP] Security Command Center) to supplement manual CLI checks.

Conflicting severity across providers — The same logical risk (e.g., public storage) may present differently per provider. Use the Threshold Tables severity definitions consistently. A publicly accessible S3 bucket, Azure Blob container, and GCS bucket all receive the same severity regardless of provider-specific defaults or naming.

Stale credentials not surfaced by default — [AWS] credential reports require generation ( aws iam generate-credential-report) before download. [Azure] sign-in logs require Azure AD Premium P1. [GCP] service account key listing shows creation date but not last usage without additional audit log queries. Document data freshness limitations in the report appendix.

CIS benchmark version alignment — Verify which CIS benchmark version applies to the deployed cloud service versions. Cite the benchmark version in findings (e.g., "CIS AWS Foundations v2.0.0 — 1.4"). Reference references/security-controls.md for control IDs.