Faced with the demand of modern businesses due to the current crisis, allowing millions of people to work remotely, it is difficult to imagine a world without cloud technology

The competition for leadership in cloud computing is a fierce three-way race: AWS vs. Azure vs. Google Cloud .

It is clear that for infrastructure as a service (IaaS) and platform as a service (PaaS), Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform (GCP) occupy a dominant position among the many companies cloud computing.

Amazon is particularly dominant. According to a 2020 report from the Synergy Research Group , Amazon’s growth continued and maintained its 33% share of the global market.

At the same time, Microsoft is particularly strong in SaaS, while Google Cloud, with its strength in artificial intelligence, is positioned for aggressive growth as the AI ​​market grows.

Elitech Systems will talk to you today about these infrastructure and cloud giants, facing the current crisis as well as their tools.

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Amazon’s greatest strength is its dominance in the public cloud market.

Its popularity is no doubt partly explained by the scale of its activities. AWS has a huge and growing range of services available, as well as the most comprehensive network of global data centers. AWS is the most mature, enterprise-ready provider with the deepest capabilities to manage large numbers of users and resources

The great weakness of Amazon is related to the cost. As AWS steadily lowers prices, many companies find it difficult to understand the cost structure of the business and manage these costs effectively when dealing with a large volume of service workloads.

In general, however, these drawbacks are more than offset by the strengths of Amazon, and businesses of all sizes continue to use AWS.

Microsoft Azure

Microsoft arrived late in the cloud market but gave itself a boost by essentially taking its software on site – Windows Server, Office, SQL Server, Sharepoint, Dynamics Active Directory, .Net, and others – and redirecting them to the cloud.

One of the main reasons for Azure’s success: many companies deploy Windows and other Microsoft software.

Since Azure is tightly integrated with these other applications, companies that use a lot of Microsoft software often find it also wise for them to use Azure.

This helps retain existing Microsoft customers. In addition, if you are already a Microsoft customer, expect to receive significant discounts on service contracts.

On the weak side, despite Microsoft Azure being a ready-to-use platform, the service experience is not as good as expected given Microsoft’s experience.

Problems with technical support, documentation but also training are the biggest black spots.

Google Cloud

Finally, let’s talk about Google cloud, the last of the trio to have entered the cloud market

What is most interesting at Google is its offer in terms of containers, which is very strong, since Google has developed the Kubernetes standard that AWS and Azure now offer.

GCP specializes in intensive computing offers such as Big Data, analysis and machine learning.

It also offers resource level scaling and load balancing because Google knows about data centers and has a quick response time.

In contrast, Google ranks third in terms of market share because it doesn’t offer as many different services and features as AWS and Azure.

It also doesn’t have as many global data centers as AWS or Azure, although it is growing rapidly.

Conclusion

With the appearance of the restrictions created by COVID-19, more and more companies recognize the undeniable value of the cloud.

Even more in this time of crisis, where companies need solutions that they can implement and test quickly

However, many cloud service providers are contributing to the fight against Covid-19 in a variety of ways

Services such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud have allowed us to continue our digital life thanks to applications such as Zoom Video or Slack.

The Coronacris also recently uncovered weaknesses in the cybersecurity of critical infrastructures such as hospitals and health care facilities, which play a critical role in fighting the current pandemic. How secure are they?

On March 15, a major attack on the coronavirus, the United States Department of Health was hit by a cyber attack. The Bloomberg news agency reported the following day, based on anonymous sources, that the attack was likely part of a disruption and disinformation campaign aimed at undermining the response to the coronavirus pandemic. Experts conclude that hospitals and healthcare facilities around the world could be particularly vulnerable to cybersecurity because many are flooded with outbreaks.

U.S. hospitals have increasingly become targets of ransomware attacks over the past year – with hackers holding files or systems hostage and only releasing the decryption key after paying the ransom. In addition, other infrastructures such as water and energy supplies, transport systems and energy installations are also increasingly at risk of cyberattacks. That is why our research editorial Newsweek Vantage, in collaboration with Siemens, Nozomi Networks and Yubico, led a worldwide study of the state of critical infrastructure security in particular.

Internal threat

Based on an analysis of the survey results of more than 415 executives from 16 different industries around the world and interviews with experts, it appears that companies do focus on better security but often find it difficult to balance security and operational performance. Striking: the biggest cybersecurity threat comes from their own employees. While nearly half (47 percent) of executives say cybercriminals are the greatest risk, the majority view former and current employees as an even greater threat.

“Most organizations focus on the technical aspects of building a digital perimeter around a facility,” said Steven Mustard, an expert at the International Society of Automation, “but what I’m most concerned about is the disgruntled employee or someone who can come in, because even if the system is completely isolated, an insider can enter the network. Cybersecurity technology is important, but actually the people, process and awareness are the things organizations need to work on. ”

Despite the finding that terrorists and states are significantly less threatening than criminals or workers, some attacks on critical infrastructure have led to a disproportionate sense of threat in the public consciousness. Take, for example, the cyber attack on the Ukrainian power grid in 2015, where hackers endangered three energy distribution companies and severely disrupted the electricity supply. That attack was later attributed to the Russian security services, and therefore continued to reverberate with many companies and government agencies.

“Government actors tend not to carry out extensive attacks, but have more specific objectives in place to steal from a specific target or destroy parts of it,” said Daniel Henriksen, Head of Legal & Security Management at technology platform Intility. “Criminals will focus on getting money.” The easiest way for a company to avoid becoming the target of criminals, Henriksen says, is to have a better cybersecurity level than their neighbors. “If a hacker knocks on the door and sees that everything is properly secured, they will go to the next.”

The pros and cons of IT integration

Another important finding is that the integration between digital and physical systems varies widely in the area of ​​critical infrastructure. Typically, electronic systems are integrated into consumables or devices with the aim of providing them with some form of intelligent behavior and increasing productivity. Only one in 10 of the managers surveyed say they do not have integrated systems. However, the great majority (68 percent) choose the golden mean and isolate only a few physical systems from IT.

The 88 percent of respondents whose organizations have integrated some or all of their systems say they have identified significant benefits as a result. Higher responsiveness leading to better performance is the most common. Other improvements include tighter operational control, greater automation, and a better customer experience.

“Organizations know that the risk of cybersecurity increases with integration and that it only happens if it leads to productivity improvements,” said Hannes Barth, General Manager of Siemens Ruggedcom. “Our customers only accept these risks because there are great benefits to integration if they allow them to use, for example, artificial intelligence and predictive maintenance technologies.”

However, the vulnerability of integrated systems has also become painfully clear in the health sector. For example, Eric Cosman, president of the International Society of Automation, heard several reports of primary care systems sharing a network with the lighting system and elevators in a hospital, theoretically allowing an intruder to hack the elevator and then find their way to the intensive care unit . “Isolated systems are no longer an option,” says Cosman, “but if you connect two things together, you need to make sure you understand the potential consequences.”

Need for a change in mentality

Nearly all executives surveyed say their organization has experienced at least one security incident in the past 12 months, and half have experienced two or more. The numbers clearly demonstrate the need for better and high-quality security strategies.

But in the context of risk management, a crisis is often needed to change the mentality within a company. This is no different in the field of cybersecurity. About 36 percent of executives surveyed readily admitted that an actual cyber-attack on their systems only prompted them to take better security measures.

“Without a crisis, it’s hard to change a corporate culture,” said Steven Mustard, who cites the example of a security breach at Maroochy Water Services in Queensland, Australia in 2000. A hacker who was angry because he hadn’t been hired by the local government, used a laptop and a radio transmitter to take control of 150 pumping stations for three months, bringing wastewater into a rainwater well. The perpetrator was eventually caught and the responsible government agency took a series of measures to improve cybersecurity. According to Mustard, such incidents demonstrate the need for preventive, rather than reactive, cybersecurity measures.

For many organizations, good leadership is a crucial factor in this. “A good culture from a cybersecurity point of view starts at the top when senior management is actually involved,” says Daniel Henriksen. “Most organizations don’t do that until they are hit by a cyber attack.”