Cloud service provider privacy assessment framework. Covers ISO 27018 cloud privacy controls, CSA STAR certification, SOC 2 Type II evaluation, shared responsibility model mapping, data residency verification, and cloud-specific privacy risk analysis.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Cloud service providers present unique privacy assessment challenges due to shared responsibility models, multi-tenancy architectures, global infrastructure, and the abstraction of physical processing locations. GDPR Article 28 obligations apply fully to cloud processing relationships, but the assessment approach must account for cloud-specific characteristics.
ISO/IEC 27018:2019 provides the international standard for protecting personally identifiable information (PII) in public clouds, supplementing ISO 27001 with cloud-specific privacy controls. The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) STAR program provides a cloud-specific security assurance framework. SOC 2 Type II with the Privacy trust services criterion addresses personal data handling controls.
At Summit Cloud Partners, cloud providers undergo enhanced assessment incorporating these cloud-specific frameworks alongside standard vendor due diligence.
| Aspect | Controller Responsibility | Provider Responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| Data encryption at rest | Configure and manage keys | Provide encryption infrastructure |
| Access management (app level) | Define and manage | Provide IAM platform |
| Network security (app level) | Configure security groups, firewall rules | Provide network infrastructure |
| Physical security | None | Full responsibility |
| Patch management (OS) | Controller (or managed service) | Hypervisor and below |
| Data backup | Configure and manage | Provide backup infrastructure |
| Incident detection (app) | Application-level monitoring | Infrastructure-level monitoring |
| Aspect | Controller Responsibility | Provider Responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| Application code security | Full responsibility | None |
| Data handling in application | Full responsibility | None |
| Runtime and middleware | Limited — configuration only | Manage platform components |
| OS and infrastructure | None | Full responsibility |
| Platform security patching | None | Full responsibility |
| Identity management | Configure | Provide identity platform |
| Aspect | Controller Responsibility | Provider Responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| Data entered by users | Determine what data to process | Process per controller instructions |
| Application security | None (except configuration) | Full responsibility |
| Infrastructure security | None | Full responsibility |
| Data portability | Define export requirements | Provide export functionality |
| Data deletion | Request deletion | Implement deletion per DPA |
| Access configuration | Configure user roles | Provide RBAC platform |
Assessment Questions:
| # | Question | Expected Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | In which regions/availability zones will personal data be stored at rest? | Architecture documentation specifying data storage locations |
| 1.2 | Can the controller restrict processing to specific geographic regions? | Configuration documentation showing region-locking capability |
| 1.3 | Are there any circumstances where data may be processed outside the selected region? | Disclosure of any cross-region processing (DR, support, analytics) |
| 1.4 | Where is metadata and telemetry data stored? | Often stored in provider's home jurisdiction — must be disclosed |
| 1.5 | Where do support staff access data from? | List of countries from which support personnel may access data |
| 1.6 | What government access or disclosure obligations apply in processing jurisdictions? | Legal analysis of government access powers per EDPB Recommendations 01/2020 |
| # | Question | Expected Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 2.1 | How is tenant data isolated from other customers' data? | Architecture documentation — logical/physical separation details |
| 2.2 | Are encryption keys unique per tenant? | Key management architecture documentation |
| 2.3 | Can one tenant's operations affect another tenant's data? | Side-channel and cross-tenant risk assessment |
| 2.4 | How are shared infrastructure components secured? | Hypervisor security, shared storage controls |
| 2.5 | What tenant isolation testing has been performed? | Penetration test results covering cross-tenant attacks |
ISO/IEC 27018:2019 extends ISO 27001 with cloud-specific PII protection controls:
| Control | Requirement | Assessment Check |
|---|---|---|
| A.1 | PII processor consent — process only per controller instructions | Verify contractual terms and processing boundaries |
| A.2 | Purpose limitation — no processing beyond controller purpose | Review processing scope documentation |
| A.3 | Use for marketing — no use of PII for marketing without consent | Confirm no data monetization or marketing use |
| A.4 | Notification — notify controller of government access requests | Verify government access notification process |
| A.5 | Disclosure — document all disclosures of PII | Review disclosure logging mechanism |
| A.10 | Return, transfer, and disposal — secure data handling at termination | Verify deletion procedures and certification |
| A.11 | Confidentiality — binding confidentiality obligations on personnel | Verify personnel agreements cover cloud-specific risks |
| A.12 | Sub-contracting — notification of sub-processor engagement | Verify sub-processor management per Art. 28(2) |
The Cloud Security Alliance STAR (Security, Trust, Assurance, and Risk) program provides three levels:
| Level | Description | Assessment Method |
|---|---|---|
| Level 1: Self-Assessment | Provider completes CSA Consensus Assessments Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ) | Review self-assessment for completeness and substantiation |
| Level 2: Third-Party Audit | Independent audit against CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) | Review audit report, scope, and findings |
| Level 3: Continuous Monitoring | Real-time monitoring of control effectiveness | Review continuous monitoring dashboard and alerts |
Key CCM Control Domains for Privacy:
| Domain | Controls | Privacy Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| DSP (Data Security & Privacy) | DSP-01 through DSP-19 | Data classification, retention, inventory, privacy by design |
| GRC (Governance, Risk, Compliance) | GRC-01 through GRC-08 | Governance framework, risk assessment, policy management |
| IAM (Identity & Access Management) | IAM-01 through IAM-16 | Access control, credential management, MFA |
| SEF (Security Incident Management) | SEF-01 through SEF-08 | Incident response, breach notification |
The AICPA Trust Services Criteria Privacy criterion evaluates:
| Criterion | Area | Assessment Focus |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | Notice | Provider discloses privacy practices to controllers |
| P2 | Choice and consent | Controller can configure privacy settings |
| P3 | Collection | Data collection limited to stated purposes |
| P4 | Use, retention, disposal | Processing per instructions; retention per DPA; certified deletion |
| P5 | Access | Controller can access and retrieve their data |
| P6 | Disclosure to third parties | Sub-processor disclosure and management |
| P7 | Security for privacy | Technical controls protecting PII |
| P8 | Quality | Data integrity and accuracy controls |
| P9 | Monitoring and enforcement | Compliance monitoring and breach response |
Document the shared responsibility boundary for every control domain:
| Control Domain | Controller Responsibility | Provider Responsibility | Gap/Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data classification | Classify data before upload | Provide classification tools | [Gap?] |
| Encryption key management | [Depends on model] | [Depends on model] | [Gap?] |
| Access control (application) | [Depends on model] | [Depends on model] | [Gap?] |
| Vulnerability management | [Depends on model] | [Depends on model] | [Gap?] |
| Incident detection | [Depends on model] | [Depends on model] | [Gap?] |
| Data backup | [Depends on model] | [Depends on model] | [Gap?] |
| Compliance reporting | [Depends on model] | [Depends on model] | [Gap?] |
| Domain | Weight | Score (1-5) | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data residency and sovereignty | 20% | ||
| Multi-tenancy and isolation | 20% | ||
| ISO 27018 compliance | 15% | ||
| CSA STAR level | 15% | ||
| SOC 2 Privacy criterion | 15% | ||
| Shared responsibility clarity | 15% | ||
| TOTAL | 100% |
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Implements 42 CFR Part 2 protections for substance use disorder patient records. Covers written consent requirements stricter than HIPAA, re-disclosure prohibition, court order procedures, qualified service organization agreements, and 2024 amendments aligning Part 2 with HIPAA. Keywords: 42 CFR Part 2, substance use disorder, SUD records, re-disclosure, consent, Part 2 amendments.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Guides assessment of third-country adequacy decisions under GDPR Article 45 for international data transfers. Covers the current EC adequacy decisions list, adequacy assessment criteria, partial adequacy handling, and monitoring of adequacy decision reviews. Keywords: adequacy decision, Article 45, third country, adequate protection, EC adequacy list.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Implements age-gating mechanisms for online services to restrict access based on user age. Covers hard gates versus soft gates, neutral age prompts, re-verification triggers, circumvention prevention, and regulatory requirements under GDPR, COPPA, UK Online Safety Act, and DSA. Keywords: age gate, age restriction, neutral prompt, children, online services, access control.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Evaluates and implements age estimation and verification technologies for online services. Covers facial age estimation, digital ID verification, self-declaration with risk assessment, AI-based age estimation, and the accuracy versus privacy tradeoff. Includes ICO guidance and euCONSENT framework. Keywords: age verification, age estimation, facial analysis, digital ID, children, online safety.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Preparing EU AI Act compliance documentation for high-risk AI systems. Covers Annex III classification, technical documentation under Art. 11, conformity assessment, risk management systems, and CE marking requirements. Keywords: EU AI Act, high-risk AI, Annex III, conformity assessment, CE marking.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Implements GDPR Art. 22 automated decision-making and AI Act Art. 14 human oversight requirements for AI systems. Covers identification of solely automated decisions, meaningful human intervention design, logic explanation mechanisms, and contestation procedures. Keywords: Art. 22, automated decision, human oversight, AI Act, profiling, contestation.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。