Secure Cloud Landing Zone
Security-First Cloud Foundation Across Seven Pillars — Account Structure, Identity, Network, Monitoring, Guardrails, Data Protection, and Shared Services
Every cloud workload inherits the security posture of the foundation it runs on. When that foundation is ad hoc — accounts created on demand, IAM designed per-project, network architecture improvised — every workload team makes independent security decisions with varying quality. The result is inconsistency at scale: some accounts are well-secured, others are wide open, and central security teams have limited visibility or enforcement capability.
This engagement designs a security-first cloud landing zone across seven pillars: Account Structure, Identity and Access, Network Architecture, Logging and Monitoring, Security Guardrails, Data Protection, and Shared Services. The design establishes the foundation that all current and future workloads inherit — consistent IAM, network segmentation, logging, encryption, and policy enforcement from day one.
Security guardrails are defined as policy-as-code: AWS Service Control Policies, Azure Policy, or GCP Organization Policies that prevent insecure configurations before they happen. The design covers a single cloud provider with up to 15-20 accounts/subscriptions/projects. This engagement produces architecture designs and policy specifications — it does not include IaC authoring or actual deployment.
Who This Is For
Ideal clients for this engagement.
The Problem
What this engagement addresses.
Ad Hoc Account Proliferation
Accounts and subscriptions created on demand without consistent structure, naming, tagging, or security baseline. Each account is an independent security island with no centralized guardrails or visibility.
Inconsistent Security Baselines
Each team configures IAM, networking, logging, and encryption independently. The result is wildly inconsistent security posture across accounts — some excellent, some critically vulnerable — with no central enforcement mechanism.
Retroactive Security is Expensive
Adding security controls after workloads are in production is 10x harder than building them into the foundation. Workload teams resist changes that require rearchitecting their deployments. Guardrails after the fact are always weaker than guardrails by design.
No Centralized Visibility
Security teams cannot see what is happening across cloud accounts. Logging configurations vary, events flow to different destinations, and there is no unified view of security posture or security events across the cloud estate.
Deliverables
What you receive.
Landing Zone Architecture Document
Complete architecture design across all seven pillars: account structure, identity and access, network architecture, logging and monitoring, security guardrails, data protection, and shared services. Includes design decisions, rationale, and alternatives considered.
Account Structure & OU Design
Organizational unit hierarchy, account structure, account provisioning workflow, naming and tagging standards, and account lifecycle management approach.
Security Guardrail Specifications
Policy-as-code specifications for SCPs, Azure Policies, or GCP Organization Policies. Preventive guardrails that block insecure configurations and detective guardrails that alert on policy violations.
Network Architecture Design
Hub-and-spoke or mesh network topology, VPC/VNet design, connectivity patterns (peering, transit, VPN/ExpressRoute/Interconnect), DNS strategy, and egress control architecture.
Methodology
How the engagement works.
Discovery & Requirements
Weeks 1 – 2
- Current state assessment of existing cloud accounts and configurations
- Workload inventory and classification
- Compliance and regulatory requirements gathering
- Stakeholder interviews: cloud engineering, security, operations, and application teams
Architecture Design
Weeks 2 – 5
- Account structure and OU hierarchy design
- Identity and access architecture (federation, role model, service accounts)
- Network architecture design (hub-spoke, connectivity, DNS, egress)
- Logging and monitoring architecture (centralized, SIEM integration)
- Security guardrail specification (policy-as-code)
- Data protection architecture (encryption, key management)
- Shared services design (security tooling, bastion, artifact management)
Review & Delivery
Weeks 5 – 7
- Architecture review with cloud engineering and security stakeholders
- Guardrail specification finalization
- Architecture document delivery
- Implementation guidance and knowledge transfer
Engagement Tiers
Scoped to your architecture.
Focused
Single cloud provider, up to 10 accounts. Core four pillars: Account Structure, Identity & Access, Network Architecture, and Logging & Monitoring.
- Account structure and OU design
- Identity and access architecture
- Network architecture design
- Logging and monitoring architecture
- Core security guardrail specifications
Standard
Single cloud provider, up to 15-20 accounts. All seven pillars with full guardrail specification and shared services design.
- Everything in Focused
- Data protection architecture
- Shared services design
- Complete policy-as-code guardrail specifications
- Network egress control architecture
Complex
Single cloud provider, 20+ accounts with advanced requirements — multi-region, hybrid connectivity, or specialized workloads (PCI, HIPAA, GxP).
- Everything in Standard
- Multi-region architecture
- Hybrid connectivity design
- Compliance-specific zone design
- Advanced shared services (centralized security tooling, forensic account)
Prerequisites
- Cloud provider selected (AWS, Azure, or GCP)
- Inventory of existing cloud accounts and workloads where applicable
- Compliance and regulatory requirements documentation
- Identity provider details (Entra ID, Okta, Ping, AD) for federation design
- Network connectivity requirements (on-premises, partner, internet)
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions.
Does this engagement include Terraform/CloudFormation/Bicep code to deploy the landing zone?
No. This engagement produces architecture designs, policy specifications, and implementation guidance — not IaC code. The designs are implementation-ready and can be implemented by your cloud engineering team or through a follow-on implementation engagement. This separation ensures the architecture is right before committing to code.
Can we apply this to existing cloud environments or is it only for greenfield?
Both. For greenfield environments, the design is implemented directly. For existing environments, the design includes a migration approach that progressively brings existing accounts into the landing zone structure — account moves, guardrail rollout, and configuration baseline remediation. The migration is phased to avoid disruption.
Why only one cloud provider per engagement?
Each cloud provider has fundamentally different organizational structures, policy mechanisms, IAM models, and network architectures. A landing zone designed for AWS (Organizations, SCPs, Control Tower) is architecturally different from Azure (Management Groups, Azure Policy, Landing Zone Accelerator) or GCP (Organization, Folders, Org Policies). Doing both superficially serves no one. Multi-cloud organizations should engage separately per provider.
Related Offerings
Often paired with this engagement.
Cloud Security Posture Assessment
If you have existing cloud environments, the posture assessment identifies the gaps that a landing zone redesign addresses.
Cloud IAM Architecture
Deep-dive into IAM if your identity requirements are complex — multiple identity providers, hybrid identity, or advanced governance needs.
Cloud Security Remediation
Implements landing zone designs as IaC and deploys changes through your change management process.
DevSecOps Program Build
Embeds security into CI/CD pipelines that deploy workloads into the landing zone — ensuring workloads are secure, not just the foundation.
Ready to discuss this engagement?
30-minute discovery call. We will discuss your application architecture, your specific concerns, and whether this assessment is the right fit.