Certified: The GIAC GPCS Audio Course

In this episode, we prevent privilege overreach in serverless so functions cannot quietly touch everything and turn a small mistake into a big incident. Serverless makes it easy to create lots of functions, wire them to events, and let them run automatically, which is great for delivery. The risk is that when permissions are broad, those functions become powerful automation agents that can reach far beyond their intended purpose, often without anyone noticing until something breaks or data shows up in the wrong place. Overreach is especially dangerous because it is silent. The function succeeds, the platform scales, and the logs may not look unusual because the access is technically authorized. Your goal is to make each function’s authority match its exact job, and to make that authority predictable across environments. When you do that, compromise and bugs have smaller blast radius, and investigations become simpler because you can reason about what the function could and could not have done. The security outcome is not perfection. It is tight scoping that makes serverless safer by default and easier to operate.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

Overreach, in this context, is permissions exceeding the function’s exact purpose, meaning the function identity has rights to resources, actions, or environments that it does not truly need to complete its defined work. Overreach can be read overreach, where a function that only needs one dataset can read many datasets, or it can be write overreach, where a function that should only publish results to a narrow destination can overwrite or delete broad ranges of objects. Overreach can also be control-plane overreach, where a function identity can change roles, policies, triggers, or configuration, even though the function’s business logic does not require any management capability. The danger of overreach is not only malicious use. It is accidental misuse, where an input validation bug, a logic error, or an unexpected event causes the function to act on the wrong target. When the function has broad permissions, those accidents become high impact. Overreach also increases the value of compromise, because an attacker who gains the ability to influence a function’s execution can leverage the function’s permissions to access sensitive data. In serverless, the function identity is often the most important security boundary, because the runtime is managed and ephemeral. If identity scope is broad, the boundary is weak.

Functions often get broad roles for convenience because teams prioritize success and speed, and broad roles are an easy way to avoid permission-related failures. When a function fails to access a resource, the fastest fix is to grant a larger role or to add a wildcard resource scope so the error disappears. Over time, these convenience fixes accumulate into roles that include many permissions nobody remembers adding. Serverless also encourages reuse of infrastructure patterns, so teams will copy a working role from one function to another rather than redesigning scope for each function. Shared roles can be especially attractive when many functions seem similar, such as a set of data processors or a set of integration handlers. The problem is that small differences in purpose lead to different required scopes, and shared roles become superset roles that are too powerful for most of the functions that use them. Another driver is lack of clarity about the function’s purpose, where a function is described broadly as process events, and the permissions reflect that vagueness. When purpose is vague, permissions become broad because nobody can confidently narrow them. The way out is to define purpose precisely and to treat scoping as part of function design, not as an afterthought. Convenience is not a crime, but convenience must be constrained so it does not become silent risk.

A scenario that captures overreach clearly is a function that can read all storage buckets even though it only needs to read one specific prefix in one bucket. Imagine a function that processes inbound documents for a single business workflow, such as extracting metadata and writing results to a database. During initial development, the team grants the function identity read access to all buckets in the account so the team can test quickly with different datasets. The function ships to production and the broad access remains because nothing breaks, and because narrowing it feels risky. Months later, the function is triggered by an unexpected event, or an attacker finds a way to influence the input so the function reads objects outside the intended dataset. Because the function can read all buckets, the function begins reading sensitive objects that were never part of the workflow, and those objects may be logged, processed, or copied into less protected storage. Even if the function does not exfiltrate data, it may create a confidentiality incident by moving data into an unintended area. The organization is then forced to investigate whether the function accessed data it should not have, which is difficult because the access was authorized and may not be abnormal in volume. The root cause is not that the function was malicious. The root cause is that its permissions exceeded its purpose, and that mismatch created a silent pathway for damage.

Pitfalls that keep overreach alive are usually structural rather than accidental. Shared roles across functions are a primary pitfall, because they create a permission union that exceeds the needs of individual functions and expands blast radius across multiple code paths. Wildcard resources are another major pitfall, such as permissions granted to all buckets, all tables, or all secrets, because wildcards make scoping feel simpler but remove meaningful boundaries. Environment sprawl is another pitfall, where the same role is used across development, staging, and production, making it difficult to narrow permissions without breaking some environment, and encouraging teams to keep everything broad. Another pitfall is hidden dependencies, where a function has grown to call additional services, and instead of refactoring permissions thoughtfully, teams simply broaden the role to satisfy new calls. Finally, permission drift occurs when roles are updated for one function and inadvertently affect many other functions using the same role. That drift often goes unnoticed because it does not break anything immediately. These pitfalls matter because they prevent you from safely narrowing scope. If the role is shared and broad, any attempt to reduce it becomes dangerous because you cannot predict which functions depend on which permissions. The fix is to create isolation and clarity, then narrow scope in controlled steps.

Quick wins begin by scoping roles per function and per environment, because isolation is what enables safe reduction. One role per function means that the permissions reflect that function’s exact purpose, not the superset of many different purposes. One role per environment means production permissions are not silently inherited from permissive development needs and that changes can be tested in lower environments without granting production-level access. This approach also improves accountability because you can see which function owns which permissions and who to contact when changes are needed. It reduces blast radius because a compromise of one function identity does not automatically yield access for other functions that share the same role. It also reduces operational confusion because permission changes are localized, and you can narrow scope without fear of breaking unrelated functions. Quick wins also include removing the most obvious wildcards first, especially those that allow broad reads of sensitive datasets or broad access to secrets. You do not need to perfect everything immediately, but you do need to stop treating broad shared roles as normal. When you isolate roles, you gain the ability to improve least privilege incrementally without causing widespread outages.

A useful practice is converting one broad permission into narrow, resource-scoped access, because that exercise builds the muscle you need for sustainable least privilege. Start with a permission that is broad in resource scope, such as read access to all storage buckets, and ask which specific resource the function truly needs. Then narrow the permission to that specific bucket and, where possible, to the specific prefix or object group that matches the function’s workflow. Also consider narrowing the action scope, because many broad permissions include actions that are not required, such as delete or overwrite when only read is needed. If the function writes results, narrow write permissions to the destination prefix and ensure it cannot overwrite unrelated content. If the function lists objects, consider whether listing can be limited to the intended prefix to prevent discovery of unrelated objects. Then validate the narrow permissions by running the function in normal workflows and confirming it succeeds, while also confirming it fails cleanly when trying to access out-of-scope resources. That validation is important because it proves you did not accidentally depend on broad access. This exercise also reveals hidden dependencies, which is valuable because it forces you to clarify purpose or refactor workflows. Converting one permission is not glamorous, but it is how you turn least privilege from a slogan into a practiced skill.

Conditions are the next level of precision because they allow you to limit access by source, time, or context, even when a resource scope alone is not enough. Source conditions can restrict access based on where the request originates, such as a specific network context or a specific internal execution environment. Time conditions can restrict when certain actions can occur, which can be useful for batch jobs that should only run during defined windows. Context conditions can restrict access based on identity attributes, token properties, or invocation context, such as requiring that a call originates from a specific function or trigger path. Conditions are especially useful for sensitive operations like secret retrieval, key usage, and write operations, where you want a second gate beyond basic role assignment. Conditions also help reduce abuse if an attacker steals credentials, because stolen credentials may not satisfy the contextual checks from an attacker environment. The key is to use conditions to tighten access, not to justify broad base permissions. If the base permission is too broad, narrow it first, then add conditions to further reduce exposure. Conditions are powerful but can be complex, so the goal is to apply them where the security payoff is high and the operational behavior is predictable. When used thoughtfully, conditions reduce the chance of out-of-context access and make alerts more meaningful.

Periodic permission reviews are necessary because functions evolve, multiply, and change ownership, and permissions tend to grow unless you actively manage them. A review should focus on whether each function’s permissions still match its current purpose, especially after new features are added or integrations change. Reviews should also identify stale grants, such as access to buckets or secrets that the function no longer uses, because those grants increase blast radius without providing value. Another review focus is cross-environment consistency, ensuring that production roles are not accidentally expanded because someone needed broader access in development. Reviews should also look for role reuse and drift, where multiple functions are attached to the same role and changes to that role have increased privilege silently. A useful review habit is to start with the most sensitive permissions, such as secrets access and broad data access, and then work outward. You do not need to review every minor permission every week, but you do need a cadence that prevents privilege creep from becoming permanent. Reviews should produce actionable outcomes, such as specific permissions to remove, specific scopes to narrow, and specific conditions to add. When reviews are routine, least privilege becomes stable over time rather than a one-time cleanup.

Alerting for privilege escalation and role changes on functions provides the backstop that catches drift and attacker activity. Privilege escalation signals include a function identity being granted new roles, a role being broadened in scope, or a function being attached to a different role with higher privileges. Changes that expand access to secrets, expand access to storage, or introduce control-plane permissions should be high priority because they increase blast radius quickly. Alerting should also cover changes to invocation permissions and triggers, because a function becoming more reachable combined with greater privilege is a classic escalation path. The most valuable alerts include who made the change, what changed, and what the before-and-after scope is, so responders can quickly judge impact. Alerting is also valuable for governance, because it creates visibility into which teams are regularly requesting privilege expansions and whether those requests are justified. It also helps prevent silent reinfection after a cleanup, because if someone reintroduces a wildcard scope, the alert fires and the change can be reviewed quickly. Alerting is not a replacement for least privilege. It is what helps least privilege stay in place as the environment changes. When alerting is tuned to high-signal privilege changes, it becomes a practical tool rather than noise.

The memory anchor for preventing serverless overreach is one function, one role, narrow scope. One function, one role means each function identity has permissions tailored to its specific purpose rather than inheriting a superset role shared across multiple code paths. Narrow scope means resources and actions are constrained to exactly what the function needs, across both resource boundaries and environment boundaries. This anchor is effective because it directly counters the two most common overreach patterns: shared roles and wildcard scopes. It also helps you communicate the goal to engineering teams without deep policy language. When a team asks why they cannot reuse a broad role, you can explain that role reuse increases blast radius and makes it harder to remove permissions safely later. When they ask why scoping is necessary, you can explain that scoping reduces the impact of bugs and compromise and makes investigations easier. The anchor is also operationally helpful because it encourages clear ownership and clearer change management. If one role belongs to one function, changes to that role can be reviewed with confidence. The anchor is simple enough to remember and repeat, which is what makes it durable.

A mini-review of role scoping steps helps you reduce blast radius quickly without getting stuck in theory. You start by identifying which functions have the broadest permissions and which are most reachable, because those are the highest risk. You then isolate those functions by assigning dedicated roles per function and per environment. You narrow the broadest resource scopes first, such as removing access to all buckets and scoping to the one bucket and prefix needed. You remove unused actions, such as delete when only read is required, and you separate read and write permissions so that write is granted only where necessary. You add conditions for high-risk operations when predictable context exists, such as restricting secret access to specific invocation contexts. You then test workflows and monitor denied actions to ensure you did not remove required permissions, adjusting scope minimally when needed. Finally, you enable alerts for role changes and scope expansions so drift is detected early. This sequence is designed to be practical and iterative, because you can reduce risk without trying to perfect everything at once. The key is that each step is measurable: fewer resources, fewer actions, fewer shared roles, and more visibility into changes.

Rehearsing a spoken justification to remove broad serverless permissions helps because the hardest part is often not the technical change, but the conversation with the team that depends on the function. A clear justification explains that broad permissions create silent risk because the function can access data beyond its purpose without obvious failure signals. It explains that least privilege reduces blast radius for both compromise and honest mistakes, which protects the business and reduces incident response effort. It explains that scoping improves reliability and predictability, because functions that rely on broad access can accidentally interact with unintended resources and cause confusing behavior. It also explains that narrow roles make audits and reviews faster, because it becomes clear what the function is allowed to do and why. It acknowledges that the team wants to move fast, and it offers a path that preserves delivery, such as narrowing permissions incrementally and monitoring denied actions to avoid outages. Finally, it frames the change as an engineering quality improvement, not just a security demand, because clear, scoped dependencies are easier to maintain. When you can speak this justification calmly, teams are more likely to cooperate and less likely to create bypasses.

To conclude, choose one function role and cut its scope sharply, starting with the broadest resource access that exceeds the function’s exact purpose. Identify the function’s purpose in one sentence, then list the specific resources it must access to accomplish that purpose. Remove wildcard resource scopes and replace them with explicit resource boundaries, narrowing to the one bucket, one database, or one secret group that the function legitimately needs. Remove unused actions, especially delete and broad write permissions, and separate read and write scopes so write is limited to the smallest destination. Add conditions for high-risk operations if the function’s context is predictable, such as restricting secret access to trusted invocation contexts. Test the function in normal workflows, and monitor for denied actions so you can correct any over-tightening without falling back to broad grants. Ensure alerts exist for future role changes so the narrowed scope stays narrow. The decision rule is simple: if a serverless role grants access beyond the function’s stated purpose, reduce it until the function can only touch what it must touch and nothing more.