Last August the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) announced at the Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas a registry that it hoped would serve as a place for prospective cloud users to go to easily inspect and compare cloud vendors' security controls. But to date, only three companies have submitted their cloud security data, making the registry of limited use.
The Security, Trust and Assurance Registry (STAR) is designed to index the security features of cloud providers using a 170-point questionnaire that end users are then able to peruse. Soon after the CSA announced STAR, big names such as Google, Intel, McAfee, Verizon, and Microsoft all agreed to take part. So far though, Microsoft is the only one of that group to have followed through.
[ In the data center today, the action is in the private cloud. InfoWorld's experts take you through what you need to know to do it right in our "Private Cloud Deep Dive" PDF special report. | Also check out our "Cloud Security Deep Dive," our "Cloud Storage Deep Dive," and our "Cloud Services Deep Dive." ]
Kyle Hilgendorf, a Gartner analyst who tracks the cloud industry, is disappointed more providers have not signed up for the registry. It has the potential to provide valuable insight for end users, but only if there is a critical mass of companies in the registry, he says.
If you only have three, four or five providers, that doesn't add a whole lot of perspective on the entire market," Hilgendorf says.
CSA Executive Director Jim Reavis remains bullish on the program and says by the end of the year he expects the registry to be more complete. Several providers, he says, are in the late stages of making submissions to the registry. "Everything starts from scratch," he says.
One issue that could be holding back adoption is what information providers are willing and able to disclose. Jon Heimerl is director of security strategies at Solutionary, a managed security services provider, and one of three companies that has submitted to STAR. Mimecast, a cloud-based e-mail optimization and security service, is the third.
When filling out Solutionary's submission Heimerl says there was a fine line that had to be drawn between how much meaningful information can be divulged without creating a security risk.
"We made our best effort to answer the questions as clearly as possible without revealing too much of the secret sauce of our security protocols," he says. One way Solutionary did that is by giving general answers to some questions and encouraged interested customers to contact them if they need additional information.
For example, Heimerl says when answering a question about encryption of information, the company answered that it uses a 256-byte encryption code and device hardening methods. It did not, however, divulge exactly what those device hardening methods are.