Topic starter
08/12/2025 12:00 pm
TL;DR: Relying only on Google Cloud’s native controls leaves DevOps teams exposed to overprovisioned access, weak visibility, and legacy PAM limits, according to Britive Team research. The security problem is not GCP itself, but the assumption that platform defaults can replace task-scoped privileged access governance.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Britive: “Should DevOps Rely Solely on Google Cloud Security?”.
By the numbers:
- 45% of those surveyed cited excessive standing privileges as their top cloud risk concern.
- 31% of security professionals cited struggles adjusting legacy access tools to cloud environments as their second-ranked cloud risk.
- 24/7 standing privileges are described as no longer viable for modern privileged access strategies.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when GCP access depends on standing privileges?
A: Standing privileges keep access alive after the task is finished, which widens the attack surface and makes privilege abuse easier.
Q: Why do standing cloud privileges create so much operational and compliance risk?
A: Standing cloud privileges increase the chance of accidental changes, lateral movement, and overexposure of sensitive data.
Q: How should security teams decide whether legacy PAM still fits cloud-native access needs?
A: Teams should test PAM against the resources they now administer, not the estate that existed when the platform was chosen.
Practitioner guidance
- Audit standing cloud privileges Inventory every persistent elevated account in GCP and adjacent cloud services, then classify each one by task necessity, time sensitivity, and potential blast radius.
- Replace 24/7 elevation with JIT issuance Move administrator and developer access to just-in-time workflows so elevated permissions are granted only for the active task and revoked automatically afterward.
- Test PAM coverage across multi-cloud workflows Validate whether your current PAM controls can govern privilege changes, policy drift, and revocation across distributed cloud services rather than only static accounts.
Bottom line: Standing privileges are the main cloud governance gap in this article, not Google Cloud itself.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 10 months ago 2 times by Abdelrahman
This topic was modified 6 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
06/10/2026 9:26 pm
Standing privilege is the real cloud governance gap, not Google Cloud itself. The article’s central problem is the assumption that native platform controls can substitute for explicit privileged access governance. That assumption fails because cloud access is task-specific, time-sensitive, and often shared across human and machine identities. The implication is that cloud IAM programmes must be designed around issuance and revocation, not default persistence.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should teams prioritise zero standing privilege over broader cloud tool consolidation?
A: Yes, if the main exposure is persistent privilege rather than missing tooling. Zero standing privilege directly reduces the window in which compromised credentials can be abused, while consolidation alone does not change how long elevated access remains active.
👉 Read our full editorial: Google Cloud privilege risk shows why standing access is the gap