Huge update! We’re proud to announce our channel partnership with CDW Corporation.
Read the press release.
Menu
Modern platform security is fundamentally about building systems that are secure by design rather than secured as an afterthought. Like architecting for scalability or reliability, security requires thoughtful integration of multiple layers that work together to protect against evolving threats.
The key insight is treating security as code—embedding protections directly into your infrastructure, deployment processes, and system architecture rather than relying on manual procedures or external guardrails.
We’re not just securing our customers’ infrastructure. We’re giving them the confidence that the service consumed is built on infrastructure where security is enforced through architecture, and automation turns policy into practice.
Confidence that doesn’t rely on heroism or hope. Confidence that comes from knowing every part of the system reinforces every other part. That’s what secure by design means.
.png)
Not long ago, managing infrastructure meant logging into servers and making manual changes that somehow became permanent. Teams would struggle with configuration drift, where production environments gradually diverged from staging and development, creating security gaps that were difficult to track or fix.
Infrastructure as Code (IaC) transforms this challenge by treating your entire infrastructure—networks, servers, databases—as version-controlled software. This approach brings security controls into your normal development workflow, where they can be reviewed, tested, and automatically applied.
When your security configurations live in Git alongside your application code, every change becomes auditable and reversible. That firewall rule modification gets caught during code review, not during the post-incident analysis. We've found this audit trail invaluable during security reviews and compliance assessments.
The real advantage is consistency. Instead of hoping that security settings are applied correctly across environments, IaC ensures that our production systems are built from the exact same security blueprint as our testing environments.
This way our customers know their data is protected by infrastructure that’s secure by design, audited continuously, and transparent for compliance purposes.
Terraform has become the standard tool for Infrastructure as Code, providing a consistent way to manage resources across different cloud providers while maintaining detailed tracking of what should exist and how it should be configured.
From a security perspective, Terraform's state management is crucial—it continuously monitors whether your actual infrastructure matches your intended configuration. Configuration drift, where systems gradually deviate from their secure baseline, gets detected automatically rather than discovered months later during an audit.
The real power comes from policy-as-code integration. Tools like Open Policy Agent allow you to write security rules that get automatically enforced during deployment. Want to prevent anyone from creating unencrypted databases? Write a policy. Need to ensure all storage buckets block public access? Create a rule that blocks non-compliant configurations before they reach production.
In practice, we've seen this approach catch potential security misconfigurations that would have otherwise slipped through manual reviews, keeping our customers data and services consistently protected, free from hidden misconfigurations or unnoticed vulnerabilities.
Multi-tenant systems face a fundamental challenge: how do you keep customer data completely separate while running everything on shared infrastructure? The traditional approach of giving each customer their own dedicated servers works, but it doesn't scale economically.
Modern isolation strategies use multiple layers of protection. Kubernetes namespaces create logical boundaries between different tenants' workloads. Network policies ensure that one tenant's applications can't accidentally access another's data. At the database level, row-level security or tenant-scoped queries provide additional protection.
The key principle is designing for failure isolation, not just data separation. When something goes wrong with one tenant's workload, it shouldn't affect any other tenant's experience. This requires the same engineering patterns used for any distributed system—resource limits, circuit breakers, and careful error handling.
With Asato’s multi-tenant design, your enterprise data stays locked safely behind layers of isolation.
A service mesh provides automatic security for communications between different parts of your application. Instead of requiring each service to handle encryption, authentication, and authorization individually, the mesh handles these concerns transparently through proxy servers that sit alongside each service.
This separation of concerns means your application developers can focus on business logic while the mesh ensures that all inter-service communication is encrypted and properly authenticated. It's like having a security layer that works by default rather than requiring constant manual configuration.
The observability benefits are equally important. When all service-to-service traffic flows through the mesh, you get detailed visibility into communication patterns, performance metrics, and security events. Unusual traffic flows or failed authentication attempts become immediately visible.
All this means, during incident response, customers can expect us to be able to trace a request's complete journey through our system, including all security decisions, which makes debugging issues much faster.
Machine learning models present unique security challenges. Unlike traditional applications, ML models are designed to respond to queries from external users, but this same accessibility can be exploited by attackers trying to reverse-engineer your proprietary algorithms.
The primary threat is model extraction, where attackers systematically query your API to understand how your model makes decisions. With enough queries, they can essentially steal your model's functionality without accessing your training data or source code.
Defense requires multiple layers. Rate limiting and authentication control who can access your models and how frequently. Network isolation keeps your training infrastructure separate from public-facing inference services. Query pattern analysis helps identify suspicious systematic probing.
Container isolation provides additional protection by running inference workloads in restricted environments that limit the impact of any successful attacks.
Modern applications depend on hundreds of open-source components, each potentially introducing security vulnerabilities. A single application might include libraries that themselves depend on dozens of other libraries, creating a complex web of dependencies that's difficult to track manually.
Container scanning automates the analysis of these dependencies, identifying known vulnerabilities, configuration problems, and embedded secrets before they reach production. The scanning happens at multiple stages—during development, in your build pipeline, and continuously in production.
Integration with your development workflow is crucial. Your build system should automatically reject container images that don't meet security standards, just like it rejects code that doesn't pass tests.
Runtime scanning is equally important. Your production container registry should continuously check stored images against updated vulnerability databases. When new security issues are discovered in libraries you're using, you want immediate alerts rather than manual discovery weeks later.
Protecting personally identifiable information (PII) requires comprehensive strategies that go beyond basic encryption. Modern approaches treat sensitive data as requiring special handling throughout its entire lifecycle—from initial collection to eventual deletion.
Automated discovery tools scan your systems for data that looks like social security numbers, credit card information, or email addresses. This helps maintain accurate inventories of where sensitive data lives and ensures it gets appropriate protection.
Single Sign-On (SSO) has evolved from a convenience feature into critical security infrastructure. When implemented correctly, SSO provides centralized authentication that can be instantly revoked if compromised, while multi-factor authentication adds additional protection against credential theft.
Session management becomes complex at scale—balancing security (short-lived tokens) against user experience (not requiring constant re-authentication). Most organizations use sliding window sessions that extend with activity but enforce absolute maximum durations.
The automation around PII handling has been particularly valuable for us, automatically redacting sensitive information from logs, encrypting it appropriately, and alerting when access patterns deviate from normal baselines.
Effective platform security emerges from thoughtful integration of these complementary practices rather than implementing them in isolation. The most successful approaches treat security capabilities as interconnected components of a comprehensive strategy.
Your Infrastructure as Code should reference your security policies. Your service mesh configurations should align with your tenant isolation boundaries. Your container scanning should integrate with your data protection tools. When these systems work together, security becomes an emergent property of your architecture.
The operational benefits are substantial. Instead of switching between multiple security dashboards during an incident, you get correlated views showing infrastructure changes, network traffic, application vulnerabilities, and data access patterns in a unified timeline.
This integration enables security automation that enhances rather than impedes development velocity. Your deployment pipeline can automatically block policy violations, your service mesh can isolate compromised workloads, and your monitoring can correlate suspicious patterns across multiple security domains.
Building these integrations at Asato has required significant investment, but the results speak for themselves. When security controls are embedded in your development workflow rather than external obstacles, teams naturally build more secure systems because the secure approach becomes the easiest approach.
The end result is infrastructure that's secure by construction rather than secured through inspection. When security invariants are enforced at the architectural level, individual mistakes or oversights can't compromise your entire security posture. It's a fundamental shift from hoping systems are secure to knowing they are secure by design.
.png)
