Certified: The GIAC GCLD Audio Course

Managed compute can remove a lot of operational work, but it does not remove security responsibility, it just moves it to different leverage points. In this episode, we start with the idea that when the provider manages the runtime and much of the underlying infrastructure, your security focus shifts away from host-level hardening and toward identity, event sources, data access, and input behavior. That shift is easy to underestimate because serverless feels ephemeral and abstract, and teams may assume short-lived functions are automatically safer than long-lived servers. In reality, serverless and managed compute can amplify mistakes, because a single function with broad permissions can touch many services quickly, and triggers can create powerful, indirect access paths. The goal is to control what the compute can do, what can invoke it, and what inputs it will accept, so the system remains predictable under attack. When you secure those levers, managed compute becomes both efficient and resilient rather than convenient and risky.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

Serverless compute is best defined in a way that clarifies what you do and do not control. Serverless is event-driven compute where the provider manages the runtime environment, scaling, and much of the infrastructure, and you provide code that executes in response to events. The key operational property is that execution is typically triggered by something else, such as a message, a storage event, a scheduled job, or a request endpoint, rather than by a long-running process you maintain. The key security property is that identity and events become the control surfaces, because you are no longer protecting a persistent host, you are protecting the permissions and the invocation pathways that connect services together. Provider-managed does not mean risk-managed, it means the provider handles certain layers while you remain responsible for code behavior, access decisions, and data handling. This model can reduce certain classes of host-level risk, but it also introduces event and identity complexity that must be governed intentionally. When you define serverless this way, it becomes clear why permission scope and trigger integrity are central.

Permissions are the first lever to get right, because serverless functions often act as glue between services and can easily become overpowered. Controlling permissions tightly matters because functions can access storage, databases, messaging, identity services, and management interfaces if they are granted broad rights. A function that processes an event should have permissions that align to that single purpose, such as reading from one queue, writing to one log sink, and accessing one specific data resource, rather than a blanket ability to read all storage or manage network settings. Overly broad permissions convert a small coding flaw into a large incident, because a compromised function or abused invocation can be used to pivot across services. Tight permission scope also supports investigation, because it narrows what the function could have touched, reducing uncertainty during response. In serverless, least privilege is not a best practice slogan, it is the primary containment boundary.

Triggers are the second lever because they define who or what can cause code to run, and attackers often target triggers as indirect execution pathways. Securing triggers means ensuring that only intended events invoke compute, and that trigger changes are controlled and monitored. An event source might be a message topic, a storage notification, a scheduler, or an inbound request endpoint, and each one has a different abuse pattern. If trigger permissions are broad, an attacker who can modify or create triggers can establish persistence by causing privileged code to run on demand. If triggers are exposed publicly, an attacker can invoke functions at will and use them as execution primitives against your environment. A secure design treats trigger configuration as a privileged change that requires review, and it restricts who can create, update, or attach triggers. Trigger security is also about verifying event source identity, because the function should not blindly trust that any event with the right shape is legitimate. When triggers are controlled, attackers have fewer ways to run your code for their purposes.

Input validation is the third lever because serverless functions often sit at trust boundaries, processing data that originated outside the function’s control. Validating inputs prevents injection and unexpected behavior by ensuring the function only processes well-formed, expected data and rejects or quarantines inputs that are outside defined constraints. Injection in this context is not only classic command injection, it also includes path manipulation, query manipulation, deserialization abuse, and logic manipulation where unexpected fields cause unsafe operations. Validation should include type checks, length checks, format checks, and allow-list based constraints for critical fields that control downstream actions. You also want to treat input as untrusted even when it comes from internal services, because internal event sources can be compromised or misconfigured. A function that assumes all internal events are safe becomes a convenient pivot point for attackers who have any foothold upstream. In serverless, input validation is a primary defense because code is the environment, and the environment is invoked by inputs.

Secrets and configuration are another critical risk area because serverless code frequently depends on API keys, credentials, and configuration values that enable access to other services. Protecting secrets and configuration means ensuring that the function can access only the secrets it needs, that secrets are not hardcoded in code or embedded in deployment artifacts, and that configuration does not expose sensitive information through logs or error messages. Secrets should be scoped to the function’s purpose, rotated on a defined cadence, and protected so that compromise of one function does not reveal credentials that unlock unrelated systems. Configuration also includes environment variables and parameters that influence behavior, and attackers may try to manipulate configuration to change destinations, weaken validation, or redirect data flows. A disciplined approach treats secret access as a privileged capability that should be logged and reviewed, because secret retrieval often precedes lateral movement and exfiltration. When secrets are protected, the attacker’s ability to turn one function compromise into broader access is reduced.

It helps to practice the permission design process by focusing on one serverless role and making the minimal access decisions explicit. Start by defining the function’s single purpose and the exact resources it must interact with to fulfill that purpose. Then identify the minimal set of actions required, such as reading from a specific event source, writing results to a specific storage location, or updating a specific record set. Avoid granting generic wildcards or broad service-level permissions, because those are convenient during development but dangerous in production. Next, restrict the role so it cannot perform management-plane actions unrelated to the function, such as modifying policies, altering network boundaries, or creating new credentials. Finally, confirm that the function’s role does not allow it to assume other roles without clear justification, because role chaining is a common privilege expansion path. This practice builds the habit of treating serverless permissions as a precise contract rather than a loose suggestion.

A common pitfall is granting broad permissions because functions are short-lived, which is an understandable but incorrect assumption about risk. Short-lived execution does not reduce what the function can do during its runtime, and many attacks happen quickly. If a function can read sensitive storage or write to privileged locations, an attacker who can invoke it repeatedly can accomplish significant impact even if each invocation lasts seconds. Broad permissions also increase the risk of accidental harm, such as a bug that deletes or overwrites data, because the function is allowed to do too much. The short-lived nature can actually make abuse harder to notice if monitoring is weak, because there is no persistent process to observe, only a stream of invocations. The right mental model is that serverless reduces server management, not privilege risk, and privilege risk is often the dominant factor. When teams stop equating short-lived with low-risk, permission design becomes more careful and more effective.

A quick win that improves security without overhauling architecture is separating functions by purpose and restricting triggers accordingly. When one function does many things, it tends to need broad permissions and broad invocation pathways, which increases risk. When functions are separated, each one can be given a narrower role and can be attached to a smaller, more controlled set of triggers. This also improves monitoring, because invocation patterns become more predictable and anomalies stand out more clearly. Restricting triggers in this approach means ensuring that the event sources that invoke a function are only the ones that should, and that cross-environment invocation is controlled so development events cannot trigger production behaviors. Separation also supports incident response because you can isolate or disable one function without disrupting unrelated behaviors. This quick win is about reducing blast radius by design rather than relying on perfect detection.

To make trigger abuse concrete, consider a scenario where an attacker abuses an exposed trigger endpoint. If a function is invoked through a publicly reachable request endpoint and input validation is weak, the attacker can send crafted requests to drive the function into unsafe paths. They might cause it to query sensitive data, write data to unintended destinations, or call downstream services in ways that escalate privilege or exfiltrate information. If the function’s role is overly broad, the attacker can use the function as a proxy to access resources that are not directly exposed to the internet. Even if the attacker cannot directly steal secrets, they may be able to cause the function to leak data through responses, logs, or side effects. If trigger configuration permissions are weak, the attacker might also modify triggers to invoke a privileged function from an untrusted source, establishing a stealthy persistence mechanism. The scenario highlights that trigger exposure and permission scope combine to define the severity of abuse, and both must be controlled.

Logging is what gives you visibility into serverless activity, and it needs to be designed to support correlation rather than just collection. Logging invocations means capturing when functions run, what triggered them, what identity context was involved, and what resources were accessed. Correlation with identity and data access matters because a burst of invocations might be benign, such as a traffic spike, or it might represent an attacker repeatedly invoking a function to probe behavior or extract data. When invocation logs are tied to identity context, you can see whether invocations align with expected principals and expected event sources. When they are tied to data access signals, you can see whether invocations correlate with unusual reads, writes, or sharing actions. This correlation is especially important in serverless because the execution is ephemeral, and the most durable evidence is often in centralized logs rather than on a host. Good logging turns serverless from a black box into an observable system where abuse patterns can be detected and investigated.

A memory anchor for serverless security is a vending machine that should accept only valid coins. The vending machine is designed to perform a limited set of actions, and it should only activate when it receives a valid input in the correct form. If the machine accepts any object as currency, it will be abused immediately, and if the machine dispenses items based on ambiguous signals, it will be tricked into giving away value. Permissions are the internal inventory control, ensuring the machine can only dispense what it is authorized to dispense. Triggers are the coin slot and activation mechanism, ensuring only valid events cause the machine to operate. Input validation is the coin validation, ensuring that what is presented is genuine and properly formed. Secrets are the internal keys and configuration that should not be accessible to customers. Logging is the audit tape that records each transaction so you can identify tampering and fraud. When you hold that model, serverless security becomes intuitive: restrict what it can do, restrict who can activate it, and restrict what it will accept.

Before closing, it helps to stitch the key themes into a coherent review that supports both architecture and operations. Serverless is provider-managed runtime with event-driven execution, which shifts your security focus toward identity, triggers, inputs, and data access rather than host hardening. Permissions must be tightly controlled because functions can otherwise access many services and become powerful pivot points. Triggers must be secured so only intended event sources can invoke functions and trigger configuration changes are controlled and monitored. Inputs must be validated so untrusted data cannot drive unsafe behavior, especially when functions sit at trust boundaries. Secrets and configuration must be protected so functions do not become secret dispensers or configuration manipulation points. Logging and correlation are required for visibility, because ephemeral execution demands durable centralized evidence. When these controls are combined, managed compute becomes predictable and resilient rather than a sprawling web of implicit trust.

To conclude, review one function’s permissions and remove one unnecessary action so you shrink risk immediately without disrupting functionality. Start by confirming the function’s purpose, then map the minimal resources and actions it truly requires to perform that purpose. Remove any broad permissions that allow access to unrelated services, and ensure the function cannot modify triggers, policies, or identities unless that is its explicit job. Then verify that triggers are restricted to intended event sources and that inputs are validated before any sensitive operation occurs. Ensure secrets access is minimal and that invocation and data access events are logged for correlation. When you remove even one unnecessary action from a serverless role, you reduce the blast radius of abuse and make the system easier to defend over time.