Achieving Continuous Exposure Management in Cloud-Native Environments

Cloud-native architectures offer unprecedented scalability, agility, and innovation. However, these dynamic, ephemeral environments have introduced significant challenges for cybersecurity teams, particularly when managing vulnerabilities and exposures effectively. Traditional vulnerability management practices are often inadequate, leading to fragmented visibility, unclear ownership, and SLA tracking difficulties. This webinar explores these challenges and presents practical strategies for achieving continuous exposure management. 

The Rise of Ephemerality: How Containers Complicate Risk Management 

Cloud-native architectures fundamentally change the game by enabling rapid scaling and continuous deployment through containerized workloads. However, this advantage introduces unique complexities when it comes to vulnerability management. 

The Problem of Asset Ephemerality 

Containerized applications frequently spin up and down in response to user demand. This ephemeral nature creates a significant obstacle: vulnerabilities identified in an asset today may vanish when that asset is terminated, only to reappear later in another container. As Tally, the head of Product Marketing at Nucleus, articulated during a recent webinar: 

“When you have a finding on an ephemeral asset and that asset goes away…what happens to the risk?” 

This highlights a fundamental issue: assets are temporary, but vulnerabilities persist, and risk does not simply disappear along with ephemeral containers. 

Why Traditional Methods Fall Short 

Traditional, on-premises vulnerability management methods rely on stable, long-lasting infrastructure. Attempting to transfer these approaches directly into cloud-native environments fails because they assume the continuity of assets. When containers are destroyed, rebuilt, or updated frequently, traditional systems lose track of vulnerabilities, creating critical blind spots. 

Fragmented Visibility: The Risk of Losing Context 

Cloud-native environments often employ various scanning tools – registry scans, runtime scans, CSPM (Cloud Security Posture Management), CNAPP (Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms) – to monitor for vulnerabilities. Each of these tools provides essential but isolated pieces of the puzzle. 

The Impact of Fragmentation 

When vulnerability data resides in multiple disconnected tools, it becomes challenging to understand the overall risk posture. Vulnerabilities detected at the image registry level might not directly correlate to runtime vulnerabilities identified by another tool. This fragmented visibility disrupts continuous risk tracking, leaving security teams uncertain about the true risk level of deployed assets. 

As Aaron Unterberger, Director of Solution Engineering at Nucleus, explained: 

“Different layers of containers are usually viewed as separate parts…creating a disjointed picture. Understanding risk and context becomes incredibly challenging.” 

Bridging the Visibility Gap 

To effectively manage vulnerabilities, organizations need unified visibility that correlates data across different security layers and scanners. Integrating data into a singular, contextual view ensures teams have the clarity required to make informed, prioritized decisions. 

Ownership Ambiguity: The Operational Cost of Unclear Responsibilities 

Determining who owns vulnerability remediation in cloud-native environments is notoriously difficult due to the layered, highly dynamic nature of container images. 

Challenges in Assigning Ownership 

A vulnerability identified in a derived container image could originate from a base or golden image maintained by a completely different team. Organizations repeatedly find themselves caught in a cycle of addressing the same vulnerabilities multiple times due to unclear ownership lines. This ambiguity not only wastes resources but also erodes trust between teams. 

Aaron illustrated the operational challenge: 

“You’re playing this game of whack-a-mole…every image built off a vulnerable base image inherits the same vulnerability.” 

Automating Clear Ownership Assignment 

To reduce operational friction, cybersecurity teams need automated workflows that clearly identify asset ownership based on container lineage, image metadata, and deployment context. This method removes ambiguity, ensuring vulnerabilities reach the right teams for remediation efficiently. 

SLA Management in a Cloud World: Rethinking Compliance Tracking 

Continuous deployment in cloud-native architectures fundamentally disrupts traditional SLA management approaches. Every new container version or ephemeral instance often resets SLA clocks, leading to unfair non-compliance scenarios. 

Traditional SLA Approaches Are Misaligned 

Organizations historically manage SLAs based on vulnerability discovery or fixed publication date. However, in cloud-native environments, frequent updates reset SLA timers prematurely. Teams become penalized immediately upon deployment of new containers using already-known vulnerable dependencies, as Aaron highlighted: 

“Teams are immediately out of SLA compliance the moment they deploy.” 

This approach damages relationships between security teams and application developers, undermining security culture. 

Anchoring SLA to Vulnerability Lineage 

Organizations must shift SLA tracking to vulnerability lineage rather than transient container instances. By anchoring SLAs to the initial detection of vulnerabilities across the entire asset lineage (from base image to runtime deployment), compliance tracking becomes accurate, fair, and aligned with continuous delivery practices. 

Introducing Adaptive Context: A Framework for Continuous Risk Management 

Addressing these challenges requires rethinking how organizations contextualize vulnerabilities within ephemeral cloud environments. The solution lies in establishing a “risk anchor,” a stable and persistent entity around which vulnerabilities can be grouped and continuously tracked. 

What Is Adaptive Context? 

Adaptive Context is a new approach we developed at Nucleus. It dynamically groups ephemeral assets around a persistent, meaningful “container workload” anchor. This method maintains continuous context about vulnerabilities, even as individual containers rapidly change or disappear. 

“To move from point-in-time scans on ephemeral assets to continuous risk management, you need a risk anchor—a durable element meaningful to the business around which risk can be grouped,” said Tally. 

Benefits of Adaptive Context 

By implementing Adaptive Context, organizations achieve: 

• Persistent Risk Visibility: Ensuring vulnerabilities don’t get lost when ephemeral assets change. 
• Accurate Ownership: Automatically identifying responsible teams based on lineage and asset metadata. 
• Consistent SLA Tracking: Anchoring SLAs to vulnerability lineage rather than individual, transient containers. 

Real-World Impact: How Adaptive Context Enhances Security Efficiency 

Organizations already implementing Adaptive Context have observed significant improvements. A notable example shared by Erin involved an insurance company: 

• Before: Container updates regularly reset SLAs, causing unnecessary stress and damaging developer trust. 
• After Implementing Adaptive Context: Vulnerabilities were anchored to their first appearance in container lineage, improving SLA compliance accuracy and significantly reducing rework. 

Actionable Recommendations for Effective Cloud-Native Vulnerability Management 

Organizations seeking to optimize vulnerability management in cloud-native architectures should: 

1. Adopt Unified Visibility Tools: Integrate multiple security scanning tools into a single, contextual platform to maintain cohesive risk visibility. 
2. Implement Adaptive Context Technology: Establish risk anchors (container workloads) to continuously track vulnerabilities, overcoming ephemeral asset volatility. 
3. Automate Clear Ownership Workflows: Use no-code, automated rules for determining remediation ownership to streamline vulnerability management processes and minimize operational friction. 
4. Revise SLA Management Practices: Transition to lineage-based SLA tracking, ensuring fair and realistic compliance expectations aligned with cloud-native deployment practices.