See every misconfiguration before attackers do.
Continuous posture, identity, and configuration drift monitoring across AWS, GCP, Azure, and Microsoft 365 explained in plain English.
A complete service, run by people.
Catch drift from CIS, NIST, and your own baselines as it happens.
Find risky roles, dormant admins, and over-permissioned tokens.
Inventory of VMs, containers, buckets, and exposed services.
Detect impossible travel, credential abuse, and lateral movement.
Block insecure Terraform, Pulumi, and CloudFormation in PRs.
Find public buckets, leaked keys, and shared OneDrive/Drive links.
The cloud misconfigurations that cause 80% of breaches
Verizon's Data Breach Investigations Report consistently identifies misconfiguration and misuse as the leading cause of cloud-related breaches — not novel zero-days or sophisticated attacker techniques. The following are the specific misconfiguration classes that Quantm's posture management tooling flags most frequently in Canadian SMB environments at initial assessment.
- Publicly accessible storage buckets — AWS S3, Azure Blob Storage, and Google Cloud Storage buckets set to public read expose data to anyone with the URL — no credentials required. This configuration is often introduced by developers testing an application and never reverted. Canadian organizations have faced OPC investigations directly traceable to unintentionally public storage containing customer records, employee data, and financial documents.
- MFA disabled on admin and privileged accounts — Microsoft's own telemetry indicates that over 99% of account compromise attacks against Azure AD succeed against accounts without MFA. For M365 Global Administrator accounts specifically — which can disable security controls, read all mailboxes, and reset any password — the absence of MFA is effectively an open door. Yet in Quantm's onboarding assessments, a significant minority of SMB tenants have at least one admin account with MFA disabled or set to an easily bypassed legacy method.
- Over-permissioned service accounts and application identities — Service accounts in cloud environments accumulate permissions over time as developers add access for new integrations and rarely remove it. A service account used to read from a single S3 bucket often ends up with S3:* on all buckets within eighteen months. When attackers compromise application credentials — through code repositories, environment variables, or SSRF vulnerabilities — they inherit every permission that service account holds. Least-privilege enforcement for non-human identities is consistently the lowest-maturity control in SMB cloud environments.
- No logging or monitoring on cloud control plane — AWS CloudTrail, Azure Activity Log, and GCP Audit Logs are the primary evidence sources for cloud incident investigation. In many SMB tenants, these logs are either not enabled, retained for only a few days, or not ingested into any SIEM or alerting system. An attacker who creates a new IAM user, elevates privileges, or disables security controls leaves trace evidence only in these logs. Without them, incident scope determination becomes impossible.
- Secrets stored in source code and environment variables — API keys, database connection strings, and cloud provider credentials committed to git repositories — including private repositories — are routinely discovered by automated scanners operated by both security researchers and threat actors. GitHub's secret scanning program detected over 12 million secrets in public repositories in 2023. Private repository access via a single compromised developer account exposes all credentials checked in across the organization's history.
- Unrestricted outbound network access — Cloud workloads with no egress filtering can freely communicate with command-and-control infrastructure, exfiltration endpoints, and credential-harvesting sites. Network security groups and VPC firewall rules default to permissive outbound configurations in most cloud providers. Without explicit egress controls, a compromised workload can exfiltrate terabytes of data with no network-layer signal.
- Stale external sharing in M365 and Google Workspace — SharePoint and OneDrive "share with anyone" links, Google Drive files shared externally without expiry, and Teams guest accounts from former contractors accumulate over time in every SMB tenant. These links represent uncontrolled access to business data that exists entirely outside your identity perimeter. A 2023 survey of Canadian M365 tenants conducted by a national managed security provider found that the average SMB had over 400 active "anyone with the link" sharing permissions on files containing sensitive data.
The cloud shared responsibility model and what it means for Canadian SMBs
Every major cloud provider — AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud — publishes a shared responsibility model that divides security obligations between the provider and the customer. The provider is responsible for the security of the cloud: physical infrastructure, hypervisor integrity, network backbone, and the underlying services themselves. The customer is responsible for security in the cloud: their data, their identities, their applications, their network configurations, and their access controls. This division is well-documented in provider terms of service, but it is poorly understood by the majority of SMBs that have migrated to cloud infrastructure.
The practical consequence is that AWS, Microsoft, and Google will not prevent you from making an S3 bucket public, will not stop you from disabling MFA on your Global Administrator account, and will not alert you when a service account accumulates permissions that give it read access to your entire data estate. These are customer-layer decisions, and the providers correctly treat them as outside their security remit. When a breach occurs because of a misconfiguration in the customer layer — which is the majority of cloud breaches — the provider's contractual liability is limited by their terms of service, and claims against them rarely succeed. The financial and reputational consequences fall entirely on the customer.
Under PIPEDA, the accountability principle (Principle 1) makes clear that an organization cannot transfer its privacy obligations to a third party. When a Canadian SMB stores personal information in a cloud environment, they remain accountable for protecting that information regardless of which provider hosts it. If a misconfiguration in the customer-controlled layer results in unauthorized access to personal information, the SMB faces potential mandatory breach notification obligations to the OPC and to affected individuals — not the cloud provider. This accountability gap between how businesses understand cloud security and how regulators assign responsibility is significant, and it creates real compliance risk for SMBs that have not invested in cloud posture management.
Agentless, API-based posture management tools — the category Quantm deploys for cloud security clients — work precisely within the customer responsibility boundary. They connect to cloud management APIs using read-only credentials, continuously evaluate the customer-layer configuration against security benchmarks (CIS Benchmarks, AWS Foundational Security Best Practices, Microsoft Secure Score), and surface deviations before attackers can exploit them. This approach requires no agents deployed to workloads, no performance impact on running systems, and no changes to production network architecture — it operates entirely through the same management APIs that administrators use to manage their environments.
Cloud data residency requirements under PIPEDA
PIPEDA does not prohibit the transfer of personal information outside Canada, but it imposes a meaningful accountability obligation on organizations that do so. The accountability principle requires that organizations use contractual or other means to provide comparable privacy protection when personal information is transferred to a third party in another jurisdiction for processing. The OPC has consistently interpreted this to mean that the transferring organization remains responsible for how the data is handled abroad and cannot escape that responsibility by pointing to a vendor's terms of service. For Canadian SMBs storing data with US-based cloud providers, this means the adequacy of the provider's privacy protections — and the contractual mechanisms that enforce them — must be documented and defensible.
Quebec's Law 25 (formally An Act to Modernize Legislative Provisions as Regards the Protection of Personal Information), fully in force as of September 2023, introduces a stricter standard than PIPEDA for Quebec-based organizations. Law 25 requires that before personal information is communicated outside Quebec, organizations conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) evaluating the sensitivity of the information, the purpose of the transfer, the protection measures in place, and whether the destination jurisdiction offers an adequate level of protection. This requirement applies to cloud providers: a Quebec SMB using AWS us-east-1 or Microsoft's US-based data centers for data containing personal information of Quebec residents must have a completed PIA on file. The Commission d'accès à l'information has indicated that enforcement of this requirement is active.
Practically, Canadian SMBs can satisfy most data residency and cross-border transfer obligations through a combination of three measures: selecting Canadian data center regions where available (Azure Canada Central, AWS ca-central-1, GCP northamerica-northeast1/2), executing Data Processing Agreements (DPAs) or Data Processing Addenda with all cloud providers that explicitly address the accountability and safeguard requirements under PIPEDA and Law 25, and documenting which data categories are stored in which regions and under which contractual protections. Many SMBs discover during their first OPC inquiry or Law 25 audit that they cannot answer the basic question of where their data physically resides — because no one mapped it when cloud services were first adopted. Continuous cloud posture management provides this inventory as a baseline capability.
What changes after week one.
You'll feel the difference fast fewer alerts, faster response, and a clearer picture of where your real risk lives.
- One inventory of every cloud account, identity, and exposed asset
- Fix the 5 misconfigurations that cause 80% of cloud breaches
- Stop reading vendor reports get a prioritized weekly action list
- Pass CIS, ISO 27001, and SOC 2 cloud control evidence requests
- Lock down M365 and Workspace defaults that ship insecure
From kickoff to coverage in days.
Read-only API connections to your cloud and identity providers.
We map your assets, identities, and current posture in 48 hours.
Top issues ranked by exploitability and blast radius not severity score.
We work with your engineers to ship fixes and prevent regressions.
Common questions, answered.
The things buyers ask us most about scope, onboarding, and what you'll see in your monthly report.
Ask us anythingMake your cloud boring again.
See your real cloud risk in one report. We'll show you the 10 things worth fixing this quarter.