Security | Threat Detection | Cyberattacks | DevSecOps | Compliance

Most people do not regard their cybersecurity and privacy documentation as a proactive security measure. On the contrary, many oftentimes view documentation as a passive effort that offers little protection to a company, generally an afterthought that must be addressed to appease compliance efforts.

The likelihood that your organization will suffer a material data breach in the next 2 years is nearly 28%, and that’s higher than last year’s risk according to The Ponemon Institute’s 2018 Cost of a Data Breach Study: Global Overview. Counsel’s best strategy is to insist on a strong organizational plan to quickly and effectively respond to data breaches and, ultimately, prevent them in the future.

The previous year (2018) witnessed an overwhelming number of cyber-attacks and data breaches that affected millions of customers across companies, including customers of household names like Uber, Facebook, Reddit, British Airways, and the Marriott hotel chain. Even governmental organizations were no exception.

France’s national data protection authority (CNIL — Commission Nationale de l’informatique et des Libertés) ordered its first sanction under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, or as commonly called as the GDPR. In this sanction, the CNIL fined Google a whopping €50 million because of Google’s failure to comply with the GDPR provisions when a user sets up his new Android phone and follows the subsequent process.

One of the key Kubernetes security concepts is that workload identity is tied back to information that the orchestrator has. The orchestrator is actually the authoritative entity for what the actual workloads are in the platform. Kubernetes uses labels to select objects and to identify collections of objects that satisfy certain conditions. We, and others in the Kubernetes networking space, often talk about using Kubernetes ‘labels’ as identity bearers.