identitysecuritybanking

How Banks' Identity Blindspots Map to Cloud Storage Risks

sstorages

2026-01-26

11 min read

Translate banks’ $34B identity gap into storage risks — stolen backups, weak keys, token reuse — and actionable defenses for hosting providers.

Hook: The $34B Identity Gap Is a Cloud Storage Problem

Banks’ identity defense shortfall — estimated at $34 billion a year by a January 2026 PYMNTS/Trulioo analysis — is usually framed as fraud, customer risk, or UX friction. For hosting providers and cloud operations teams that serve banking customers, that gap has a different and immediate translation: identity failures become cloud storage failures. From stolen backups to weak keys to token reuse and drift, the consequences live in object stores, snapshot repositories, and secrets backends.

Why storage teams should care — the inverted pyramid

Most banks will keep moving workloads to the cloud in 2026. That migration increases dependency on cloud-native storage and its security posture. If identity verification is "good enough" for customer onboarding but not for privileged access, attackers will exploit identity blindspots to reach the most valuable asset: data at rest. Addressing identity gaps isn't a pure IAM problem — it's a storage security imperative.

Key takeaways up front

Identity failures accelerate storage risks: compromised credentials lead directly to backup theft, unauthorized snapshots, and key misuse.
Mitigations must span IAM, encryption, auditability, and operational controls — and be tailored for hosting providers serving banks.
Implement automated secrets lifecycle, immutable backups, hardware-backed key control, and telemetry tuned for identity anomalies.

From $34B to stolen backups: the attack pathways

"Banks Overestimate Their Identity Defenses to the Tune of $34B a Year" — PYMNTS, Jan 2026

The PYMNTS figure quantifies a systemic reality: identity controls are often the weakest link. For hosting providers, that maps into several concrete storage-centered attack paths.

1. Compromised operator credentials -> direct backup exfiltration

Attackers who obtain cloud-console or API credentials for privileged or misconfigured accounts can enumerate and download backups from object stores, or create and copy database snapshots to external endpoints. Many backup systems use broad roles to simplify operations; when those roles are abused, the result is mass data extraction.

Common vectors: credential stuffing, phishing, session token replay, and compromised developer workstations with cached CLI credentials.
Typical target: snapshots and S3-like buckets containing backups, DB dumps, and exported logs.

2. Weak key custody and key reuse

Identity gaps extend into cryptography when teams fall back to weak, shared, or centrally-stored keys. If identity proves inadequate, an attacker who obtains an encryption key (or its wrapping key) can decrypt backups even if they are exfiltrated encrypted.

Risk patterns: reuse of customer master keys (CMKs) across environments, exporting keys to less-protected key stores, and lack of hardware-backed protection.
Consequence: encrypted snapshots become readable, breaking a primary safeguard for banking data.

3. Token reuse, long-lived API keys and CI/CD secrets

In many cloud-hosted banking stacks, automation uses long-lived tokens. Tokens embedded in CI/CD, IaC templates, or configuration management can be leaked through code repos or build logs. Attackers leverage these tokens to read/write storage artifacts and manipulate backup workflows.

Example: a compromised pipeline service account can create snapshot copies and attach them to attacker-controlled compute.
Common oversight: lack of automated rotation and non-enforcement of short token TTLs.

4. Misconfigured access control: overly permissive object storage

Even good identity systems fail when access policies are misapplied. Publicly accessible buckets, permissive ACLs, and wildcard IAM policies are frequent culprits that convert identity failure into public data exposure.

2025–2026 trends that amplify the risk

Recent industry and threat trends through late 2025 into early 2026 increase the urgency for storage-centric mitigations.

Synthetic identity and bot-driven attacks: Improved automation and cheap identity fraud markets enable attackers to create and scale privileged account takeovers.
Credential-stuffing and leaked-token economies: Large dumps and password spray remain effective; hosting tenants often reuse credentials across test/prod.
Confidential computing and MPC KMS: Cloud providers are offering more options (late 2025–2026) for hardware-backed key custody, enabling stronger separation of key control from storage owners — a capability hosting providers must integrate.
Regulatory and audit focus: Banking regulators and auditors have increased emphasis on identity-proofed access to customer data; hosting providers must support stronger controls to maintain customers' compliance posture.

Practical mitigations for hosting providers — a prescriptive checklist

Below are prescriptive controls that hosting providers should implement and offer as part of a secure storage platform for banking customers. We organize them by control domain and include actionable implementation notes.

I. Identity & Access Management (IAM)

Enforce least privilege and role-based access: Build narrowly-scoped roles for backup and snapshot operations. Avoid broad "storage-admin" roles that include identity management privileges.
Short-lived credentials and just-in-time (JIT) access: Use ephemeral credentials (OIDC tokens, STS-style short TTLs) for operators and automation. Integrate JIT approval flows that require approval for high-risk actions like backup export.
Multi-factor and hardware-bound authentication: Require MFA for all privileged console/API access; support hardware authenticators and FIDO2 for operator logins.
Service account policies: Limit pipeline and automation service accounts with strict resource and time boundaries. Block the use of long-lived keys in CI/CD; use workload identity federation.

II. Key management and cryptography

Separate custody with HSM-backed CMKs: Offer or require customer-managed keys (BYOK) stored in FIPS 140-2/3 HSMs or MPC-based KMS. Avoid shared software keystores for bank-grade backups.
Envelope encryption and per-tenant keys: Use envelope encryption with unique per-tenant CMKs. Prevent key reuse across customers or environments.
Key rotation and automatic re-encryption: Automate CMK rotation and provide safe re-encryption of snapshots. Maintain cryptoperiods that meet banking compliance standards.
Immutable key governance logs: Record all KMS operations in tamper-evident logs and make them available for audit with retention policies aligned with bank compliance needs.

III. Backup hardening and lifecycle

Immutable and time-locked backups (WORM): Support write-once-read-many snapshots and time-locked retention to prevent malicious deletion or tampering.
Network egress controls for backup exports: Block or gate outbound transfers of backups unless exported via approved, auditable channels. Use policy-based egress restrictions and data loss prevention (DLP) checks.
Encrypted backups with separate key domains: Enforce encryption at rest and unique keys per backup scope; never store unencrypted dumps in object stores.
Segregated backup storage accounts: Isolate backups into accounts/projects with dedicated IAM and monitoring to reduce blast radius from compromised production credentials.

IV. Secrets management and CI/CD

Centralized secrets vault with rotation hooks: Integrate HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, or equivalent with automated rotation and short TTLs for tokens used by pipelines.
Secret zero and workstation hygiene: Enforce ephemeral secrets retrieval at runtime; prevent secrets in code, images, and logs using secret scanning in CI.
Pipeline least privilege and approval gates: Limit pipeline privileges and require manual approval or ephemeral escalation for backup-related actions that access production storage.

V. Telemetry, detection, and audit

Identity-aware detection: Feed identity signals (unusual authentications, geography, device posture) into SIEM/XDR rules that specifically monitor backup access and snapshot creation.
Telemetry for storage operations: Log object downloads, snapshot exports, KMS operations, and presigned URL creation with high fidelity and retention aligned to compliance needs.
Behavioral baselines and anomaly detection: Use ML-enabled detection to spot anomalous data egress patterns—large downloads, new endpoints, or off-hours snapshot copies.
Automated containment: Integrate playbooks to revoke tokens, rotate keys, or freeze backup exports when identity anomalies are detected.

VI. Compliance enablement and auditability

Provide audit-ready trails: Ensure every storage access, key usage, and backup lifecycle event is traceable to an authenticated identity with immutable logs.
Support customer-controlled keys and attestations: Offer BYOK, HSM attestations, and cryptographic proof of non-export to help banks meet GLBA, PCI-DSS, and SOC2 requirements.
Sandboxed compliance reporting: Deliver prebuilt reporting templates for common banking audits and map them to controls (IAM policies, KMS usage, backup retention, WORM).

Operational playbooks: step-by-step for two critical scenarios

Below are two concise playbooks — one for preventing backup theft from compromised identities, the other for responding to a suspected key compromise.

Playbook A — Preventing backup theft

Identify all backup targets and map IAM principals with access to each (including pipelines and third-party connectors).
Segment backups into dedicated projects/accounts and apply distinct per-tenant CMKs (HSM-backed).
Implement pre-export policy: any backup export must pass a JIT approval workflow and a DLP policy scan.
Enable telemetry to alert on large backup downloads, presigned URL generation, or new external endpoints.
Run quarterly attack-simulation exercises focused on identity compromise and backup exfiltration.

Playbook B — Suspected key compromise

Immediately disable affected CMK for cryptographic operations (not deletion) via KMS policy change.
Spin up an alternate CMK and initiate re-encryption for the most critical snapshots. Prioritize data by sensitivity and regulatory need.
Rotate all dependent keys and revoke all tokens scoped to the compromised key domain.
Forensic-log collection: gather KMS logs, backup storage logs, IAM activity, and corresponding network flows.
Notify affected customers and regulators per contractual and legal obligations; hand off forensic data for audit if required.

Pricing and trade-offs — what hosting providers should offer banks

Providing bank-grade storage controls carries costs: HSM-backed keys, immutable storage, and high-fidelity telemetry increase TCO. Hosting providers can offer tiered options:

Baseline: encrypted-at-rest, RBAC, audit logs.
Compliance: customer-managed keys (BYOK), WORM retention, extended log retention.
Premium: HSM/MPC key custody, confidential computing enclaves for backup processing, devoted network egress gates, and on-demand audit bundles.

Communicate these trade-offs to banking customers: the incremental spend for HSM-backed keys and immutability is often small compared to the potential losses implied by the $34B identity gap when applied to storage breaches. For guidance on vendor pricing and internal trade-offs see Cost Governance & Consumption Discounts.

Real-world (anonymized) case study

One regional bank migrated core ledger backups to a multi-tenant object store with a shared backup role for convenience. A compromise of a developer's laptop exposed an API key used by a CI job that copied nightly backups for testing. The attacker used the key to download a series of backups — encrypted with a shared software key — and decrypted them offline. Post-incident changes implemented by the hosting provider included per-tenant HSM keys, JIT access for backup exports, pipeline OIDC federation, and an automated egress approval flow. The bank reduced its backup exposure to near-zero and passed the subsequent regulator attestation.

Advanced strategies for 2026 and beyond

Looking forward, hosting providers should embrace capabilities that mitigate identity-driven storage risk at scale:

Confidential computing for backup processing: Process and transform backups inside hardware enclaves to prevent key/material exposure on host nodes.
MPC and distributed KMS: Use multi-party computation to eliminate single custodian keys, reducing the impact of identity breaches.
Identity attestation across supply chains: Adopt verifiable credentials and device attestations for end-to-end identity of every actor touching backups.
AI-assisted identity-threat hunting: Use ML to correlate identity anomalies with storage access patterns and to reduce detection time from hours to minutes.
Policy-as-code and continuous compliance: Automate conformance checks so backups and keys remain compliant with evolving banking requirements without manual audits. See frameworks for when to buy vs build policy tooling.

Checklist: 12 immediate actions for hosting providers

Map all identities with storage and backup permissions.
Enforce ephemeral credentials and disable long-lived API keys for production backup paths.
Enable customer-managed HSM-backed keys by default for banking customers.
Segment backup storage into isolated accounts/projects per customer.
Deploy WORM/immutable snapshot capabilities with policy-driven retention.
Integrate secrets vaults with automated rotation for CI/CD.
Implement JIT approval for backup exports and large downloads.
Enable high-fidelity logging for KMS, object storage, and IAM with extended retention.
Build automated playbooks for credential compromise and key compromise scenarios.
Use identity-aware telemetry to trigger containment actions.
Offer tiered compliance bundles (BYOK, audit assistance, HSM attestations).
Run red-team exercises simulating identity-driven data exfiltration annually — and rehearse incident notification to customers and regulators in advance (see recent regional incidents for what to expect).

Final thoughts — aligning identity posture with storage security

The $34B estimate is a stark reminder that identity controls are business-critical. For hosting providers, the translation is straightforward: every identity blindspot becomes an opportunity for attackers to compromise backups, steal keys, and abuse tokens. The solution is not a single control but an integrated program that spans IAM, key management, backup architecture, telemetry, and compliance.

In 2026, banks will increasingly demand hosting partners who not only store their data but who can prove that identity-to-storage controls are robust, auditable, and resilient. Providers who operationalize the mitigations above — and who offer clear compliance-friendly product tiers — will win trust and reduce collective exposure.

Call to action

If you operate hosting for financial services, start with a one-week sprint: map identities, isolate backup storage, and enable customer-managed HSM keys for your top five banking customers. Need help defining the sprint plan or running an identity-driven storage tabletop? Contact our security team for a tailored assessment and an audit-ready remediation roadmap.

storages

Contributor

Senior editor and content strategist. Writing about technology, design, and the future of digital media. Follow along for deep dives into the industry's moving parts.