4 ms·
soc2 compliance for Lambdas happens through AWS https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/services-in-scope/ https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/services-in-scope/ not th
by lovehashbrowns 6y ago
soc2 compliance for Lambdas happens through AWS https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/services-in-scope/ https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/services-in-scope/ not through our team's engineers.
So for example, if we have a service deployed in an EC2 instance, we have to update the instance(s) every month by a certain date. Sometimes, we have to update early if there is a severe security issue. We also have to manage things like security software that has to run on every instance, logging for soc2 compliance, access controls, manage ssh keys, etc. etc.
That's a lot for our engineers to handle every single month. A lot of context switching. It's not so bad if we only have one service to manage. But the actual issue is that we have many services to manage. So every month, our board had about 12 stories related to patching. Patch service X development. Patch service x staging. Patch service x production. Patch service Y development.... and so on.
For serverless, the team responsible for SOC2 compliance gets the reports from AWS without us ever having to do anything. No patching stories, no security software that breaks on occasion, no access management, etc.
All we have to worry about in terms of SOC2 compliance are the basics like principle of least privilege (i.e. lambdas do not have full access to DynamoDB), no public endpoints, we use VPCs blessed by the security team, and that's about it. Things we're used to doing everywhere else and things that we only worry about when writing the terraform.
Now when I add a Lambda, I only worry about writing the Python code for the lambda and copying the terraform code. That's it. There is no patching story for this service.
And yes, of course we're passing the buck. That's kinda what we pay for in the premiums that AWS gets from our massive bill every month. That's kind of the entire point for cloud-based systems, anyway. We're passing the buck on a ton of other things, like not having to manage hard disks, not having to manage network cables, not having to manage a building, not having to manage HVAC, not having to manage backup batteries, etc.
- annoyingnoob 6y agoI guess in places where I've worked we've had Ops folks that handled things like access controls, managing secrets, servers, network, etc. Usually in space rented in a commercial datacenter, where the datacenter handles power, cooling, physical security, and where the building has a diversity of internet providers. Its a team effort. In my opinion, software developers shouldn't be responsible for OS level patches, OS access controls, etc. It makes sense in a startup situation but it doesn't scale and it only takes one misstep.
- lovehashbrowns 6y agoI am an operations folk lol. Hence having to patch instances.