Exposed Cloud Services Found in 76% of AWS Accounts, 8% of Google Cloud, According to New Analysis of 3000 Organizations

The assumption that the “Big Three” cloud providers share a uniform risk profile has quietly broken enterprise security postures. When engineers apply generalized configuration baselines to distinct architectures, critical vulnerabilities slip through the cracks. The 2026 Cloud Security Index published by Intruder exposes a massive variance in how infrastructure misconfigurations manifest across different cloud ecosystems.

The 76 Percent Problem: Why AWS Environments Outpace GCP in Exposure

The numbers speak volumes about architectural complexity. Analysts tracking 3,000 organizations found that nearly three-quarters of AWS accounts harbored exposed services, while Google Cloud accounts sat at an 8% exposure rate. This stark contrast stems directly from how permissions and networking defaults operate under the hood.

AWS requires rigorous, explicit policy crafting to lock down resources like S3 buckets. One missed JSON statement in an IAM policy instantly turns a private repository into a public endpoint. By contrast, Google Cloud’s hierarchical resource manager and default hardening often insulate teams from their own administrative oversights—though GCP introduces its own unique risks, such as default service accounts inheriting excessive “Editor” or “Owner” privileges.

Treating Azure Network Security Groups identically to AWS Security Groups remains a classic engineering trap. They handle evaluation logic and rule priorities through entirely different operational pipelines. A copy-pasted configuration script that functions securely in one environment can easily punch unintended holes in another.

Moving Beyond One-Size-Fits-All Remediation Frameworks

Effective mitigation requires ditching generic checklists in favor of provider-specific guardrails. Organizations must audit public access points immediately, scanning for publicly exposed storage buckets like AWS S3 alongside database instances such as Azure SQL and GCP Cloud SQL. These endpoints remain the leading vector for modern data breaches.

Network security audits must hunt down high-risk ports globally exposed to 0.0.0.0/0. Specifically, security teams need to verify that SSH (port 22), RDP (port 3389), and SMB (port 445) are entirely blocked from the public internet across all AWS Security Groups and Azure Network Security Services.

Short-term improvements spanning the first one to three months demand the deployment of native guardrail systems. Engineering teams should leverage AWS Control Tower, Azure Policy, or GCP Org Policy to automatically block the creation of non-compliant resources before they hit production. Simultaneously, organizations must transition away from broad managed policies toward custom, granular IAM roles, paying special attention to Azure Active Directory (Entra ID) guest permissions and cross-account access boundaries.

Shifting Left with Infrastructure as Code and Centralized Logging

Long-term survival in multi-cloud environments relies on shifting security left. Integrating automated Infrastructure as Code (IaC) scanning tools like Checkov or Terraform-compliance directly into CI/CD pipelines catches misconfigurations long before deployment. Manual console changes—those quick fixes made directly in a provider’s web UI—introduce dangerous configuration drift that breaks synchronization with underlying IaC templates.

Visibility must be unified across the stack. Consolidating AWS CloudTrail, Azure Activity Logs, and GCP Operations Suite into a centralized Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) platform provides the necessary telemetry to spot anomalous behavior.

Enterprise maturity models dictate the appropriate operational response:

• Small Organizations: Deploy native, complimentary security tools like AWS Security Hub or Azure Advisor. Enforce Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) universally to make identity the primary perimeter.
• Medium Organizations: Automate patch management schedules using AWS Systems Manager or Azure Automation. Execute quarterly configuration audits to root out shadow IT assets spun up outside standard procurement channels.
• Large Enterprises: Establish a dedicated Cloud Center of Excellence (CCoE) to draft global security standards reflecting each platform’s nuances. Implement automated remediation scripts, such as AWS Lambda functions designed to auto-terminate non-compliant instances instantly.

The Zero Trust Imperative for Modern Multi-Cloud Architectures

Perimeter defenses are dead. Transitioning toward a Zero Trust Architecture means replacing legacy network boundaries with identity-based micro-segmentation across every cloud provider.

Photo: imtr.net

Deploying a multi-cloud Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) platform offers a single pane of glass to evaluate risk across divergent architectures. Alignment with established frameworks—such as CIS Benchmarks, NIST SP 800-53 controls, and ISO/IEC 27017—ensures compliance audits match actual operational security rather than checking boxes on an outdated template.

Security teams must accept a hard truth: a checklist cannot think. Only rigorous, provider-aware engineering can close the gap between expected posture and actual exposure.