Cloud Security Maturity Model 2.0
Browse Cloud Security...
BCR-05.2: Chaos engineering is implemented
BCR-05.2: Chaos engineering is the practice of introducing deliberate faults into a system to test resiliency. In highly mature organizations, this is performed in production environments, not just development and testing. Injecting controlled faults into production ensures the systems are able to automatically recover and forces engineering teams to plan for failure. Some cloud providers support built-in chaos engineering (fault injection) tools and services. In other cases, this is managed using third-party or OSS tools.
  • Control automation: Either
  • AWS control specification: * Pass if AWS Fault Injection Simulator (FIS) is used in >10% of accounts
  • If FIS is not detected, use a manual assessment to query if chaos engineering is in use
  • Azure control specification: none
  • GCP control specification: none
  • Third-party (CSPM/CNAPP) control specification: none
Not Applicable - Not applicable
Level 1: Initial - Initial. Manually managing policies/procedures, mostly through console. Architectures tend to resemble traditional infrastructure (e.g., low use of serverless and high reliance on network security controls). IAM mostly ad hoc with little-to-no federation.
Level 2: Repeatable - Repeatable. Policy-/checklist-based and relies more on manual or simple tooling. High variability between projects; not coordinated across deployments. Initial use of infrastructure as code (Terraform/CloudFormation), but security not consistently engaged in design/review. Federation on some accounts, but limited use of MFA due to difficulties supporting teams (especially on the command line).
Level 3: Defined - Defined. Policies and central coordination in place. Some initial security automation still executed manually. Some third-party tooling (orchestration with other tools), Federation on most accounts with widespread MFA, but still gaps on consistency. Security starting to review and promote use of CloudFormation/Terraform. CSPM/CNAPP (CSP or third party) in use.
Level 4: Capable - Capable. Strong centralized security management with consistent enforcement. Automation and guardrails across multiple deployments. Expanding library. Big shift from manual management and execution to running security operations with centralized platforms with centralized management and reporting. Consistent use of federation and MFA, with some gaps supporting toolchains.
Level 5: Efficient - Efficient. All major activities centrally managed, covering all of the CSMM domains. Integrated into infrastructure-as-code (IaC) environment. Built into the stack with provisioning automation. Federation and MFA working consistently across toolchains (e.g., command-line support).

Description
  • Control automation: Either
  • AWS control specification: * Pass if AWS Fault Injection Simulator (FIS) is used in >10% of accounts
  • If FIS is not detected, use a manual assessment to query if chaos engineering is in use
  • Azure control specification: none
  • GCP control specification: none
  • Third-party (CSPM/CNAPP) control specification: none