Points clés à retenir

• La souveraineté minimale viable (MVS) consiste à appliquer le niveau de contrôle adéquat aux charges de travail concernées.
• Traiter toutes les charges de travail de la même manière peut entraîner une complexité et des coûts inutiles, ou une protection insuffisante.
• Les organisations se répartissent généralement en trois profils de souveraineté : les entités véritablement souveraines, les entreprises réglementées et les environnements hybrides multicloud.
• Assurer une gouvernance cohérente dans des environnements mixtes constitue l’un des principaux défis opérationnels.

There is a version of the digital sovereignty conversation that leads organizations somewhere expensive, operationally burdensome, and – if they’re being honest – further than their actual obligations require. Maximum sovereignty sounds responsible. In practice, it’s often a miscalibration.

There is an equally common version that leads somewhere dangerously thin – controls that satisfy a checklist but wouldn’t survive an audit, an incident, or a regulator who has stopped accepting documented intent as proof of demonstrated control.

The organizations that get sovereignty right tend to do something more rigorous and more practical than either extreme: They ask what they actually owe, to whom, and for what. Then they build to that standard – no more, no less.

This is the discipline of MVS, introduced in the rapport  and developed in full here.

MVS isn’t a shortcut. It’s a recognition that the goal is the right level of control, applied consistently, across every workload that requires it.

Toutes les charges de travail ne se valent pas

The starting point for an MVS approach is workload classification – and most organizations skip it entirely.

A trading system processing regulated financial data carries fundamentally different sovereignty obligations than an internal HR collaboration tool. A database holding personal data of EU citizens is subject to a different legal and regulatory regime than a development environment running anonymized test data.

Treating all of these identically – either by applying maximum sovereign controls across the board or by assuming a single deployment model covers everything – is how organizations end up either over-engineered or under-protected.

The right question before any deployment decision: What does this workload require across each of the four sovereignty pillars? The Readiness Report includes a self-assessment structured around exactly that question.

The Three Profiles – and What They Actually Need

Les entreprises réglementées se répartissent en trois profils distincts, chacun ayant des motivations principales et des priorités d’investissement différentes.

• The True Sovereign. Government agencies, defense contractors, and critical national infrastructure operators. For these organizations, sovereignty is not a compliance requirement – it is an operational mandate. Maximum control over every dimension of the technology stack is often legally required, and the cost tradeoffs are accepted because the alternative is not.
• The Regulated Organization. Financial services firms, healthcare organizations, energy companies. These organizations face binding requirements from DORA, NIS2, GDPR, and sector-specific frameworks. Compliance obligations may also map to EU certification schemes – including EUCS, EUCC, BSI C5, and SecNumCloud – depending on sector and deployment context.

on-negotiable in certain areas – particularly around data residency, operational access controls, and recovery within jurisdictional boundaries. But not every workload carries the same obligation.

• The Hybrid Multi-Cloud Organization. Organizations with existing hyperscaler investments facing increasing sovereignty pressure from customers, regulators, or procurement requirements. Their challenge is not wholesale migration – it’s layering sovereign controls onto a mixed estate and maintaining consistent governance across it.

Le coût d’un mauvais équilibrage

Over-engineering sovereignty creates its own operational risks. Organizations that apply maximum sovereign controls to workloads that don’t require them absorb cost and complexity that serves no regulatory or business purpose.

Under-engineering is the more common failure mode, and the more dangerous one. It typically doesn’t show up until the audit arrives – or, more seriously, until an incident occurs and recovery becomes a legally constrained problem. (That failure mode is the subject of the quatrième article de cette série.)

Un point de départ pratique

Une approche MVS suit trois étapes :

1. Classify workloads by their actual sovereignty requirements across each pillar – don’t start with deployment models.
2. Associez chaque classe de charge de travail au niveau de déploiement qui répond à ces exigences, sur l’ensemble du spectre allant des régions des hyperscalers publics au cloud public souverain, en passant par les environnements gérés sur site.
3. Govern the resulting mixed estate consistently – controls, audit evidence, and recovery capabilities must be demonstrable across the full environment, not just the most-sovereign tier.

The third step is where most programs struggle. Maintaining consistent sovereignty controls across a mixed estate is an operational governance challenge – and specifically the domain of Operational Sovereignty – sujet du troisième article de cette série, le pilier que la plupart des stratégies traitent comme une considération secondaire.

Utilisez l’auto-évaluation durapportpour évaluer votre situation actuelle sur l’ensemble des quatre piliers.

FAQ

Q : Qu’est-ce que la « souveraineté minimale viable » (MVS) ?

R : Le MVS consiste à mettre en œuvre des contrôles de souveraineté en fonction des besoins réels de l’entreprise et des exigences réglementaires. Il vise à éviter à la fois une conception trop complexe et une protection insuffisante.

Q : Pourquoi la classification des charges de travail est-elle importante ?

R : Les charges de travail varient selon les obligations réglementaires et opérationnelles qui leur sont associées. La classification des charges de travail aide les organisations à mettre en œuvre le niveau approprié de contrôles en matière de souveraineté.

Q : Quels sont les trois profils de souveraineté les plus courants ?

R : Ces trois profils sont les suivants : les organisations véritablement souveraines, les organisations réglementées et les organisations hybrides multi-cloud. Chacune d’entre elles présente des exigences distinctes en matière d’exploitation et de conformité.

Q : Quels sont les risques liés à une conception trop sophistiquée de la souveraineté ?

R : Des contrôles excessifs peuvent accroître la complexité opérationnelle et les coûts sans pour autant apporter de valeur ajoutée significative en matière de conformité ou d’activité.

Q : Pourquoi les environnements mixtes posent-ils des défis en matière de gouvernance ?

R : Les organisations opèrent souvent sur plusieurs modèles de cloud et d’infrastructure. Il est difficile de garantir la cohérence des contrôles, des éléments probants d’audit et des normes de Recovery dans tous les environnements.

Ruben Renders est directeur des solutions MSP chez Commvault.

Points clés à retenir

• La « résidence des données » désigne le lieu où celles-ci sont stockées, mais la souveraineté numérique implique également le contrôle de l’accès et des opérations, ainsi qu’une bonne compréhension des implications juridictionnelles.
• La souveraineté opérationnelle est souvent l’élément le plus fragile et le moins contrôlé de la plupart des programmes de souveraineté.
• Une approche globale en matière de souveraineté repose sur quatre piliers : la localisation des données, la souveraineté technologique, la souveraineté opérationnelle et la souveraineté juridictionnelle.
• La souveraineté n’est pas une notion binaire ; les organisations doivent définir une approche adaptée à leurs obligations réglementaires et opérationnelles.

Here is a question worth sitting with: When your organization made its sovereignty decision, what exactly did it decide?

For most, the answer is some version of the same thing. Pick a region. Move the workloads. Choose a cloud provider with data centers in-country. Check the box. The question of where data lives was answered, and the sovereignty conversation was considered closed.

But it wasn’t closed. It had barely started.

Data residency answers one question: Where? Digital sovereignty asks three more – who, how, and under what conditions?

The conflation of residency with sovereignty is understandable. Hyperscalers have made region selection feel like a sovereignty decision. Compliance checklists ask where data is stored. Regulatory guidance, at least in its earlier iterations, focused heavily on geography.

Choosing a sovereign cloud region is a real thing – it matters, it has operational implications, and it’s a necessary first step. But it is only a first step. And most organizations stopped there.

What Residency Doesn’t Answer

Think of it this way: Choosing a sovereign cloud region is like buying a safe. It tells you where your valuables are stored. It says nothing about who has a copy of the combination, who manufactured the safe, which country’s laws govern the manufacturer, or whether you can open it if compelled to.

Region selection answers one question. Three more remain entirely open – and these are the questions regulators, procurement committees, and auditors are now asking with increasing precision:

• Who can operate your environment, and from where? Whether your cloud provider’s support personnel are subject to foreign jurisdiction is a sovereignty question that data residency cannot resolve. A routine maintenance window performed by a support engineer in a different legal jurisdiction is an access pathway your residency policy doesn’t cover. This is the domain of Operational Sovereignty – the hardest pillar to audit and the most commonly overlooked.
• Under what legal regime can your data be accessed? A foreign technology provider operating infrastructure in-country does not automatically remove the reach of their home jurisdiction’s law. The extraterritorial reach of foreign legal regimes is a risk that geography alone cannot eliminate.
• Can you recover your data if something goes wrong? Most sovereignty programs are built around access control. Very few address recovery – whether your data can be restored cleanly, within defined tolerances, by personnel who operate within your sovereignty boundary. That gap is where sovereignty postures most commonly fail under real conditions.

Le cadre qui comble cette lacune

A complete sovereignty posture spans four interdependent pillars. The rapport – available at readiverse.com – walks through each in full. In brief:

• Data locality addresses where data and metadata actually travel.
• Technological sovereignty covers control over encryption, key custody, and architecture portability.
• Operational sovereignty covers who runs the environment and from where.
• Jurisdictional sovereignty establishes the legal framework governing and affecting all of the above.

No single pillar is sufficient. A strong data locality posture with weak operational controls is not sovereignty – it is residency with unexamined risk.

What makes the framework useful is not its complexity. It’s the questions it generates. When an organization maps its current posture against all four pillars for the first time, it almost always finds gaps it didn’t know were there – not because the controls are absent, but because the questions were never asked.

La souveraineté est une notion relative

One more thing worth naming: Sovereignty is not a binary state. There is no certification that grants it and no single deployment model that guarantees it. It is a posture – a set of deliberate, auditable decisions. And the right level of that posture varies by organization, by workload, and by what you actually owe regulators and customers.

That calibration is what minimum viable sovereignty is about – the subject of the deuxième article de cette série.

Regulatory confidence is built long before the audit itself – through clearly defined requirements, not assumptions tied to geography.

Download the rapport for the four-pillar framework and a practical self-assessment tool.

FAQ

Q: What is the difference between data residency and digital sovereignty?

A: Data residency focuses on where data is physically stored. Digital sovereignty goes further by addressing who can access the data, how systems are operated, and exposure to which jurisdictions may create legal risk.

Q: Why is region selection not enough for sovereignty?

A: Choosing a cloud region only addresses geography. It does not resolve issues related to operational access, legal risks exposure, or recovery capabilities.

Q: What are the four pillars of digital sovereignty?

A: The four pillars are data locality, technological sovereignty, operational sovereignty, and jurisdictional sovereignty. Together, they create, what we believe, is a more complete framework for assessing sovereign readiness.

Q: Why is operational sovereignty difficult to manage?

A: Operational sovereignty involves monitoring who can access systems, where they operate from, and under which legal regime. These controls are harder to audit than simple data location requirements.

Q: Is digital sovereignty a fixed certification?

A: No. Sovereignty is an ongoing posture based on deliberate, auditable decisions that vary by organization, workload, and regulatory environment.

Ruben Renders is Solutions Director, MSP, at Commvault.

Points clés à retenir

• Les attaques par « vishing » ont connu une forte augmentation, des groupes organisés ayant industrialisé le recours à l’ingénierie sociale pour obtenir un premier accès par le biais des services d’assistance.
• Les pirates passent rapidement des comptes utilisateurs compromis à des identités machine persistantes, telles que les jetons OAuth et les comptes de service.
• La plupart des organisations manquent de gouvernance et de visibilité sur les identités non humaines (NHI), ce qui crée un angle mort majeur en matière de sécurité.
• Une Readiness efficace repose sur la mise en corrélation des signaux d’identité et sur le fait de considérer les identités des machines comme des actifs à haut risque.
• Une véritable résilience nécessite la capacité de détecter et d’annuler les modifications non autorisées des privilèges avant que les attaquants ne parviennent à s’implanter durablement.

Your help desk staff just got a phone call. The caller knew the employee’s name, their manager, and the last four digits of their badge number. They asked for a password reset. Standard procedure. The IT rep complied.

That call was a fraud. And the attacker is now inside.

Voice phishing – vishing – jumped 449 % en 2025. Les groupes malveillants ont fait de l’ingénierie sociale une opération à grande échelle : recrutement d’opérateurs téléphoniques, rédaction de scripts, eten déboursant entre 500 et 1 000 dollars per successful help desk impersonation. They’re not looking for your data. They’re looking for a foothold.

Once inside, attackers don’t linger on the human account. They move laterally – stealing OAuth tokens, creating new administrative service accounts, embedding access in machine-layer credentials that nobody watches. Unlike human passwords, those credentials are rarely rotated. They don’t trigger login alerts. They can survive a full remediation of the original compromised user.

By the time your security team closes the ticket on the help desk incident, the attacker may have been quietly persistent in your environment for weeks. The governance gap makes it worse.

Moins de 25 % of organizations have formal policies for creating or decommissioning NHIs – the service accounts, API keys, and OAuth tokens that now outnumber human users by 144 à 1. Nearly all of them carry permissions far beyond what their function requires.

Most organizations have almost no confidence in their ability to detect an attack targeting this layer. That’s not a prevention failure. It’s a recovery planning failure.

À quoi ressemble la Readiness ?

Prevention at the help desk matters – training, callback verification, out-of-band confirmation. But it isn’t enough on its own. Attackers are industrializing faster than awareness programs can keep pace.

Readiness means correlating the signals: A help desk interaction followed immediately by a multi-factor authentication (MFA) reset or a new token creation is a high-probability indicator of compromise.

It means treating machine identities as Tier 0 assets – governing their creation, scoping their permissions, and monitoring for unauthorized escalation. And it means having the ability to detect and roll back malicious privilege changes quickly, before they become the new normal.

Explore how Résilience des identités Commvaultpermet la détection, la restauration et la reprise rapides de votre environnement d’identité.

FAQ

Q : Qu’est-ce qu’une attaque par « vishing » dans le contexte de la sécurité d’entreprise ?

A: Vishing (voice phishing) uses phone calls to impersonate employees and manipulate IT help desks into granting access – typically through password or MFA resets. It’s increasingly industrialized, with organized groups recruiting callers and using pre-written scripts to maximize success rates.

Q : Pourquoi les pirates s’attaquent-ils aux identités des machines après s’être introduits par le biais d’une attaque de « vishing » ?

A: Human accounts get remediated. NHIs – OAuth tokens, service accounts, API keys – are more persistent and rarely rotated, often invisible to traditional monitoring. Migrating access to the machine layer allows attackers to maintain that persistence long after the original human credential breach is detected and closed.

Q: What does “identity resilience” mean in practice?

A: It means your organization can help detect unauthorized privilege changes in near real time and help restore the identity environment to a trusted state quickly. Detection alone isn’t sufficient – the ability to roll back malicious activity and verify that machine identities haven’t been tampered with (or if tampered with, to be rolled back to a prior good point in time) is what separates readiness from exposure.

Vidya Shankaran est directeur technique (CTO) sur le terrain chez Commvault.

Points clés à retenir

• L’ingénierie sociale visant les services d’assistance est désormais l’un des principaux points d’entrée, les attaques de « vishing » (hameçonnage vocal) se multipliant rapidement et entraînant la compromission des identifiants.
• Les identités non humaines, telles que les comptes de service et les jetons, constituent un angle mort majeur en matière de sécurité ; elles sont souvent laissées sans surveillance et largement exploitées à des fins de déplacement latéral.
• Active Directory (AD) constitue une cible de choix en raison de son contrôle centralisé et des risques de mauvaise configuration.
• La prévention à elle seule ne suffit pas ; les organisations doivent disposer de solides capacités de détection et de reprise rapide afin de limiter les dégâts.
• Immediate operational actions – like auditing accounts and correlating help desk activity with identity changes – can significantly reduce risk.

Active Directory (AD) reste une cible privilégiée des pirates, car il est au cœur de la gestion des identités en entreprise.Des études récentes montrent que67 % des incidents impliquent désormais une compromission liée aux identités, with attackers going after critical systems like AD within hours of initial access.Once compromised, recovery can take days or weeks – causing significant business disruption.
The question worth asking isn’t whether AD is a target.It’s how attackers get tici – and why the path is so much shorter than security teams might expect.

3 étapes pour parvenir à un compromis global

Des groupes malveillants tels que ShinyHunters et Scattered Spider ont fait de l’ingénierie sociale une opération à grande échelle.Voice phishing – vishing – jumped 449% in 2025.Les appelants sont recrutés, reçoivent un script à suivre etsont rémunérés jusqu’à 1 000 dollars depending on success and hit rate.
That means, it’s possible to start an attack with one step: Get a password reset or multi-factor authentication (MFA) change.That’s it.
From that single credential, the attacker moves laterally into cloud and virtualized environments.They harvest OAuth tokens, create new administrative service accounts, and embed access in machine-layer credentials.These non-human identities – service accounts, API keys, tokens – now outnumber human users 144 to 1.La prolifération et la charge opérationnelle rendent la rotation des identifiants et les audits difficiles. Ce déplacement latéral a une destination : Active Directory.

La publicité est la cible

AD is the central nervous system of enterprise identity.Control it and you control everything – user accounts, group policies, and access to every domain-joined system in the network.The reason it’s so attractive to attackers – and so difficult to defend – is structural.Any authenticated user can read the entire directory.Every domain-joined system inherits trust from it.
Group Policy Objects linked at the domain head can be weaponized to disable security controls outright.Legacy protocols left enabled for application compatibility provide straightforward access.Microsoft’s own documentation says that “most identity attacks utilize common misconfigurations in Active Directory.”

When an attacker reaches the AD, they don’t need to force entry.The door is usually open.

La prévention est nécessaire, mais pas suffisante

The standard security stack – MFA, endpoint detection, email filtering – is built around human behavior.It wasn’t designed to govern the machine identity layer or to detect the kind of slow, legitimate-looking privilege escalation that characterizes modern AD attacks.An attacker that moves from a compromised human account to a service account to a domain administrator over 72 hours may never trigger a single alert.
This is why the conversation must shift from prevention-first to recovery-first.
Prevention still matters.Least-privilege access, auditing AD changes, hardening default configurations, disabling inactive accounts – these can help reduce the attack surface.But given that half of organizations have already experienced an AD attack, designing only for prevention means designing to fail.
True identity resilience requires the ability to detect unauthorized privilege escalations in near real time, roll back malicious changes before they propagate, and restore the identity environment to a known-trusted state quickly – not in days or weeks, but fast enough to contain the blast radius.That means treating AD and the non-human identity layer as Tier 0 assets, with the same governance and recovery investment you’d apply to any other mission-critical system.

Que faire dès maintenant pour renforcer la résilience identitaire ?

The gap between wici most organizations are and wici they need to be on identity resilience is real.But it’s closeable.The immediate priorities are unglamorous and operational:

1. Audit what’s in your AD.
2. Find the accounts that shouldn’t still exist.
3. Rotate the credentials that haven’t been touched in years.
4. Établir une corrélation entre l’activité du service d’assistance et les événements liés à la création de jetons et de comptes.

A help desk interaction followed by an MFA reset followed by a new service account is a high-confidence attack signal – and it’s detectable if you’re looking for it.
The longer-term work is architectural: Build recovery capability into your identity program so that when an attack succeeds – and it’s usually when, not if – you can contain it, reverse it, and try to restore trust faster than the attacker can consolidate their position.
Attackers are counting on your AD being ungoverned, your machine identities being invisible, and your recovery plan being theoretical.Close one of those gaps this quarter.Close all three and you’ve fundamentally changed the math. 

Découvrez comment Commvault Cloud une protection complète de l’Active Directory – from vulnerability assessment to one-click rollback and full forest recovery.
I recently joined Vidya Shankaran on the STRIVE podcast to talk about the governance gap for non-human identities.Check out our episode ici.And be sure to read Vidya’s blog, Le « point aveugle » lié à l’identité des machines constitue désormais une surface d’attaque majeure.

FAQ

Q: Why are help desks becoming a major security risk?

A: Help desks are often trusted to reset passwords and modify MFA settings, making them attractive targets for social engineering.Attackers exploit this trust to gain initial access with minimal resistance.
Q: What role do non-human identities play in attacks?

A: Sprawl and operational overhead make rotation and audit of non-human identities, such as service accounts and API keys, difficult.Attackers use them to maintain persistence and move undetected across systems.
Q: Why is AD such a critical target?

A: AD controls authentication and access across the network.Gaining control of it allows attackers to manage users, policies, and systems at scale.
Q: Isn’t MFA and endpoint security enough to stop these attacks?

A: These tools focus on human behavior and may not detect slow, legitimate-looking privilege escalation.Attackers can operate within normal patterns and avoid triggering alerts.
Q: What does a recovery-first security approach mean?

A: It means preparing for the reality that breaches will happen and prioritizing the ability to detect, contain, and reverse them quickly.This approach helps reduce downtime and can help limit overall impact.
Q: What are the most important steps to take immediately?

A: Start by auditing your AD, removing unnecessary accounts, rotating old credentials, and monitoring for suspicious sequences of help desk and identity-related activities.
Dan Conrad est technologue en chef et directeur technique sur le terrain chez Commvault.

Points clés à retenir

• La migration des machines virtuelles vers Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization est un processus par étapes qui nécessite une protection cohérente dans tous les environnements hybrides.
• platform de protection des données unifiée et native de Kubernetes platform réduire la complexité et d’éviter d’avoir recours à des outils ou des processus distincts.
• Reliable resilience – including immutable backups and threat detection – is critical during migration, when risks are highest.
• Des options de reprise flexibles permettent aux organisations de s’adapter rapidement en cas d’échec des étapes de migration ou de modification des délais.
• La consolidation de la protection des machines virtuelles et des conteneurs permet de réduire la prolifération des outils et d’assurer une gouvernance cohérente.

If you’re an IT leader today, chances are your virtualization strategy is under active review.

Rising costs, licensing uncertainty, and long-term vendor lock-in have many organizations reassessing their reliance on traditional hypervisors. At the same time, Kubernetes has matured into the operational foundation for modern applications.

These two realities are converging – and for many enterprises, Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization is emerging as a preferred destination for running virtual machines within a Kubernetes-native operating model.

This transition is accelerating across industries. As organizations modernize infrastructure on their own terms, Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization is increasingly viewed as a way to modernize the platform without the need for application refactoring. With that momentum comes a critical question:

How do you migrate virtual machines while maintaining consistent protection, resilience, and recoverability throughout the process?

To answer it, you need to examine how most enterprise migrations actually unfold – and where protection and resilience become critical.

La migration est un parcours, pas un événement ponctuel

Seasoned IT leaders know that infrastructure transitions rarely happen all at once.

For enterprises opting to move from hypervisors like VMware to Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization, the transition typically unfolds in phases. During this time, organizations inevitably operate in a mixed state:

• Les machines virtuelles basées sur VMware continuent de soutenir les activités principales de l’entreprise.
• Les machines virtuelles qui fonctionnent désormais sur Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization.
• Applications conteneurisées partageant les mêmes clusters Red Hat OpenShift.

This coexistence period introduces complexity and risk. Data is in motion, environments are changing, and protection gaps can appear if tooling and processes don’t evolve alongside workloads.

Il est essentiel de garantir une protection fiable

Commvault propose depuis longtemps des solutions de protection et de restauration des données tant pour les environnements VMware que pour les charges de travail Kubernetes exécutées sur Red Hat OpenShift. Ce même modèle de protection natif de Kubernetes et basé sur des règles s’étend désormais aux machines virtuelles exécutées sur Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization. Ce qui touche vraiment les clients, c’est la cohérence :

• Une platform unique platform la protection et la restauration.
• Des opérations basées sur des règles appliquées de manière uniforme à l’ensemble des charges de travail.
• Conçu pour s’adapter à vos outils et processus existants à mesure que les environnements évoluent.

Les machines virtuelles exécutées sur Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization sont protégées à l’aide des mêmes workflows et mécanismes de gouvernance que les applications conteneurisées. Cette approche unifiée est adoptée par les entreprises qui standardisent leurs environnements sur Red Hat OpenShift et qui recherchent une méthode plus simple et plus cohérente pour gérer les données dans l’ensemble de leurs environnements. Cette fonctionnalité est disponible dès aujourd’hui.Commvault Cloudprend en charge la protection des environnements Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization conformes à la version 11.40 (support à long terme) et à la version 11.42 (Innovation), ce qui signifie que les clients peuvent dès à présent mettre ces fonctionnalités en production.

You Shouldn’t Need to Manage Protection Differently

Once VMs move to Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization, they shouldn’t require special handling from a protection standpoint.

Commvault Cloud discovers and protects Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization VMs alongside containerized applications, helping give teams centralized visibility, consistent policy enforcement, and simplified recovery operations. Virtualized and containerized workloads are managed together – without introducing operational silos.

For organizations managing diverse application portfolios, this treatment of VMs inside Kubernetes helps reduce operational friction while maintaining enterprise-grade controls.

La cyber-résilience est essentielle lorsque la migration accroît les risques.

Les périodes de migration constituent une phase particulièrement vulnérable. Le changement engendre de la complexité, et cette complexité accroît le risque de perte de données et ransomware. Commvault Cloud maintenir la résilience tout au long de cette phase grâce à :

• Sauvegardes isolées physiquement et immuables pour les charges de travail Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization.
• Des données de sauvegarde qui facilitent la recherche de menaces et l’analyse forensic, aidant ainsi les équipes à vérifier que tout est prêt pour la restauration avant de rétablir les charges de travail.
• Advanced recovery capabilities designed to help organizations minimize operational disruption.

Que les charges de travail soient en phase de pré-migration, en cours de transition ou pleinement opérationnelles sur Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization, leur résilience reste intacte.

La flexibilité en matière de reprise inspire confiance

Every modernization initiative needs room for adjustment.

Commvault supports both in-place and out-of-place recovery for Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization virtual machines, including full VM context and configuration. If a migration step doesn’t go as planned – or timelines need to shift – teams may recover quickly and move forward without compromising availability or data integrity.

Une protection native de Kubernetes allant au-delà des machines virtuelles

Pour de nombreuses entreprises, la virtualisation ne constitue qu’un élément parmi d’autres d’une stratégie plus large de modernisation des applications. Commvault Cloud offre Cloud une protection centrée sur les applications et native à Kubernetes pour les charges de travail conteneurisées, y compris les volumes persistants et les métadonnées des applications, sur l’ensemble des distributions Kubernetes certifiées par la CNCF. Cela permet d’assurer la mobilité et la reprise des applications cloud, tout en contribuant à maintenir la cohérence opérationnelle entre les différents environnements.

Réduire la prolifération des outils à mesure que l’infrastructure évolue

Platform transitions often introduce new tools, new processes – and new complexity.

By using Commvault Cloud as a unified protection platform for:

• Machines virtuelles VMware.
• Machines virtuelles Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization.
• Applications en conteneurs.

Les organisations peuvent contribuer à réduire la prolifération des outils, à simplifier la gestion et à maintenir une gouvernance cohérente, même à mesure que les stratégies d’infrastructure évoluent.

Comment tout cela s’articule

During any migration, it helps to understand how the pieces work together. Red Hat’s Migration Toolkit for Virtualization takes care of moving VMs from VMware into Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization.

Commvault Cloud helps provide the protection and resilience that stays with your workloads throughout the process, so data can remain protected before, during, and after migration. This can help keep recoverability from falling behind as workloads move.

Continuing the Conversation at Red Hat Summit

We’re already working with customers that are actively moving virtual machines onto OpenShift Virtualization – and we’re continuing these discussions at Red Hat Summit, May 11–14 in Atlanta.

At the Commvault booth, we’ll be:

• Entretiens avec des responsables informatiques sur les défis concrets en matière de résilience.
• Partager des conseils pratiques pour migrer en toute confiance.
• Présentation de la solution Commvault Cloud pour Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization.

If maintaining resilience and recoverability throughout your virtualization strategy is a priority, we’d welcome the opportunity to connect.

Aller de l’avant en toute confiance

Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization is becoming a foundational component of modern enterprise infrastructure. But you can’t rush migration at any cost; you must build protection, resilience, and recovery into the process from the beginning.

With Commvault Cloud, protecting Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization workloads isn’t a future aspiration. It’s something customers already are doing – using a unified platform to modernize confidently while staying resilient and recoverable.

“Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization delivers a reliable, consistent foundation for organizations to support their entire virtualized estate,” says Steve Gordon, Senior Director, Product Management, Hybrid Cloud Platforms, at Red Hat. “By leveraging an optimized integration like Commvault Cloud with Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization, our customers can move forward with greater confidence, knowing their workloads are protected consistently before, during, and after migration.”

FAQ

Q : Pourquoi la migration des machines virtuelles est-elle considérée comme un processus en plusieurs phases ?

R : La plupart des entreprises ne peuvent pas migrer toutes leurs charges de travail en une seule fois ; elles fonctionnent donc en mode hybride, avec des environnements existants et nouveaux fonctionnant simultanément. Cette approche progressive introduit une certaine complexité, ce qui rend indispensables une protection et une visibilité cohérentes tout au long de la transition.

Q : Quel rôle joue la résilience lors de la migration d’une machine virtuelle ?

R : La résilience permet aux organisations d’assurer la protection des données, de se remettre rapidement des pannes et de se prémunir contre les menaces telles que ransomware. Lors d’une migration, alors que les systèmes sont en pleine transition, des mesures de résilience solides peuvent contribuer à prévenir la perte de données et les perturbations opérationnelles.

Q : Comment Commvault Cloud -t-il la protection dans tous les environnements ?

R : Commvault Cloud une platform unique platform une protection basée sur des règles pour les machines virtuelles VMware, les machines virtuelles OpenShift Virtualization et les applications conteneurisées. Cette approche unifiée permet d’assurer la cohérence des opérations sans avoir à mettre en place de nouveaux outils ni de nouveaux flux de travail.

Q : En quoi la protection native de Kubernetes est-elle importante ?

R : La protection native de Kubernetes s’adapte aux modes de déploiement et de gestion des applications modernes, en couvrant à la fois les conteneurs et les machines virtuelles. Elle permet une gestion simplifiée des données, ainsi que la mobilité et la reprise au sein d’environnements cloud.

Q : En quoi la flexibilité en matière de reprise après sinistre renforce-t-elle la confiance dans la migration ?

R : Des options de restauration flexibles, telles que les restaurations sur site et hors site, peuvent aider les équipes à rétablir rapidement leurs charges de travail en cas de problème. Cette adaptabilité contribue à réduire les temps d’arrêt et permet aux entreprises d’ajuster leurs plans de migration sans compromettre l’intégrité des données.

Q : Comment les organisations peuvent-elles réduire la complexité lors des transitions d’infrastructure ?

A: By adopting a unified data protection platform, organizations can manage all workloads – virtualized and containerized – through a single interface. This approach helps reduce tool sprawl, simplify administration, and maintain consistent governance across evolving environments.

Jason Gizaest responsable senior du marketing des partenaires de contenu à l’international chez Commvault.

Points clés à retenir

• La la Readiverse Academy a mis en place un parcours de certification structuré et à plusieurs niveaux, allant des connaissances de base à l’expertise avancée cloud .
• Les certifications sont adaptées aux postes réels, ce qui permet aux apprenants d’acquérir des compétences en adéquation avec leurs responsabilités au sein Cloud Commvault Cloud .
• The program includes four tiers – Practitioner, Specialist, Professional, and Expert – each increasing in depth and operational capability.
• L’apprentissage repose sur trois piliers fondamentaux : platform , la cyber-résilience et l’expertise en matière de charges de travail.
• Des options de formation flexibles, comprenant notamment des formats en autoformation et animés par un formateur, permettent aux professionnels de progresser en fonction de leur emploi du temps et de leurs objectifs.

The environments you protect with Commvault® Cloud are increasingly complex, and the expectations on your teams that run them are higher than ever. It’s no longer just about knowing the platform. It’s about being able to operate, protect, and recover, often under pressure.

If you’ve already started your learning journey in the la Readiverse Academy, welcome back. And if you’re new here, you’re joining at the right time.

Today, we’re introducing a structured, tiered certification approach that gives learners a clear, skill‑based path from foundational platform knowledge to advanced cloud engineering expertise.

Nous créons du contenu pour vous

Commvault Cloud environments demand expertise across multiple responsibilities, often within the same role. Administrators, security specialists, cloud engineers, and workload owners require different depths and breadths of knowledge. And not everyone needs to learn the same things, in the same order, to be effective.

The new la Readiverse Academy certification tiers reflect that reality. Learners progress through clearly defined levels that build on one another so that your certification aligns to what you actually do and validates those capabilities to the teams you work with.

• Commvault Cloud Practitioner – foundational platform and resilience knowledge.
• Commvault Cloud Specialist – expanded operational and security depth.
• Commvault Cloud Professional – advanced recovery and workload expertise.
• Commvault Cloud Expert – full cloud engineering and resilience leadership.

Each tier is earned through a combination of coursework, hands‑on lab activities, and validated assessments. As learners progress, the scope and depth of operational capability demonstrated increases accordingly.

Un parcours clair : de la pratique à l’expertise

Le programme de certification s’articule autour de trois piliers de compétences fondamentales qui se retrouvent à tous les niveaux :

• platform fondamentales platform
• Concepts de cyber-résilience
• Charge de travail et expertise fonctionnelle

Chaque niveau ajoute des exigences spécifiques à ces axes. Les apprenants peuvent suivre des cours individuels ou combiner certaines exigences pour atteindre leurs objectifs de certification.

Already in la Readiverse Academy? What this Means for You.

With a new structure like this, the most important question is what it means for the progress you’ve already made. If you’ve already completed courses or earned certifications in the la Readiverse Academy, congratulations! Your investment matters, and we want to be clear about what happens next.

Those certifications represent your history and accomplishments with Commvault. The new program is aligned to our expanded portfolio of cyber resilience features for Commvault Software, Commvault SaaS, and hybrid environments. As your needs grow to require more from Commvault, these courses and certifications will help you configure, manage, and optimize Commvault to meet your organization’s unique needs.

There is no direct progression from the previous certification tracks to the new program, but your existing certifications validate your expertise on the former product releases. As those releases are retired, those certifications will reach end of life as well. Learners who are already invested in the la Readiverse Academy are well positioned to progress quickly.

Who Should Take la Readiverse Academy Courses and Certifications

la Readiverse Academy certifications are designed for professionals working across Commvault SaaS, Commvault Software, and hybrid environments.

• Platform administrators managing day‑to‑day operations.
• Des spécialistes de la sécurité chargés de protéger les données et de renforcer la sécurité des environnements.
• Cloud chargés de la configuration du plan de contrôle et de la résilience avancée.
• Les responsables de charges de travail qui doivent maîtriser des domaines de données spécifiques.

All training is available for self‑paced learning, with select courses also offered in instructor‑led formats, so learners can progress in a way that fits their role and schedule.

Comment se lancer ou poursuivre son parcours d’apprentissage

Whether you’re starting fresh or continuing your journey, the next step is simple and designed to meet you where you are.

• Connectez-vous ou inscrivez-vous surcommvault.com.
• Vous découvrez Commvault ? Commencez par suivre la formation « Commvault Cloud ».
• Vous êtes chargé de la gestion de la charge de travail ? Découvrez notre catalogue de formations qui couvre pratiquement tous les domaines.
• Vous cherchez des stratégies pour faciliter la reprise après une cyberattaque ? La formation « Cyber-résilience » est le point de départ idéal.

Ce qui va suivre

Our goal is to make advancement predictable, transparent, and aligned to real‑world roles to help learners know what’s next and how to prepare for it.

We are committed to giving every Commvault Cloud user the knowledge to operate, protect, and recover their environment with confidence. Because when it matters most, certification isn’t about credentials. It’s about being resilient and ready to recover.

FAQ

Q: What is the purpose of the la Readiverse Academy certification program?

R : Ce programme propose un parcours d’apprentissage structuré et axé sur les compétences, qui aide les professionnels à passer platform de base platform à une expertise avancée cloud . Il adapte la formation aux responsabilités concrètes rencontrées sur le terrain afin de permettre aux apprenants de mettre efficacement en pratique leurs connaissances dans des environnements complexes.

Q : Quels sont les différents niveaux de certification disponibles ?

R : Il existe quatre niveaux : Commvault Cloud , Specialist, Professional et Expert. Chaque niveau s’appuie sur le précédent, avec une expertise technique, un champ d’application opérationnel et des compétences en leadership de plus en plus approfondis.

Q: Who should enroll in la Readiverse Academy courses?

R : Ces formations s’adressent aux platform , aux spécialistes de la sécurité, cloud et aux responsables de charges de travail évoluant dans des environnements SaaS, logiciels et hybrides. Chaque profil peut suivre un parcours de formation sur mesure, adapté à ses responsabilités.

Q : Comment obtient-on ces certifications ?

R : Les certifications s’obtiennent grâce à une combinaison de cours théoriques, de travaux pratiques en laboratoire et d’évaluations validées. Au fur et à mesure de leur progression, les apprenants démontrent des niveaux d’expertise croissants dans les domaines platform, de la sécurité et des charges de travail.

Q: What happens to existing la Readiverse Academy certifications?

R : Les certifications existantes restent valables en tant que preuve d’une expertise acquise par le passé, mais elles sont liées à des versions antérieures du produit. À mesure que ces versions seront retirées, les certifications arriveront en fin de vie, ce qui incitera les apprenants à passer au nouveau programme.

Q : Comment peut-on commencer à utiliser ce nouveau programme ?

R : Les nouveaux apprenants peuvent commencer par la formation « Commvault Cloud , tandis que les utilisateurs existants peuvent se connecter pour poursuivre leur parcours. D’autres formations sont disponibles en fonction d’objectifs spécifiques, tels que la gestion des charges de travail ou les stratégies de cyber-résilience.

Suzanne Klausner est directeur de la stratégie d’accompagnement client chez Commvault.

Points clés à retenir

• La plupart des exercices sur table servent à valider les performances plutôt qu’à mettre en évidence les véritables lacunes dans la gestion des incidents.
• Pour que les exercices soient efficaces, ils doivent intégrer des éléments de friction, d’ambiguïté et de pression afin de refléter des situations réelles.
• Limiter la portée de l’exercice à quelques scénarios critiques et considérer que le succès consiste à identifier des problèmes plutôt qu’à faire bonne figure peut permettre d’obtenir des enseignements plus pertinents et plus exploitables.
• La participation de différents services, et pas seulement celle des équipes techniques, est essentielle pour évaluer avec précision la capacité de réaction de l’organisation.
• C’est par des tests de reprise réels, et non par de simples scénarios théoriques, que l’on peut démontrer une véritable résilience.

There is a moment most security leaders recognize, even if they do not say it out loud. The tabletop just wrapped. The team is filing out. Everyone looks reasonably satisfied. And somewhere in the back of your mind, a quiet question surfaces: Did we actually learn anything?

If you are honest, the answer is often no.
That is not because tabletop exercises are a bad idea. They are one of the most valuable tools a security leader has. The problem is how most organizations run them – and what they are actually measuring when they do.

Le piège de la performance

The most common mistake in tabletop exercises has nothing to do with the scenario. It has to do with the goal. Most teams, consciously or not, build exercises designed to demonstrate competence rather than discover gaps.
The scenario generally follows a clean arc. Information arrives in a logical sequence. The right people say the right things. Everyone feels prepared. And that feeling – confident, well-rehearsed, almost collegial – is exactly the problem.
Real incidents do not run on clean arcs. They arrive with incomplete information, conflicting signals, unavailable people, and a business demanding answers faster than the facts support. If your tabletop does not create that kind of friction, you have not tested incident response. You have practiced a conversation.
When the exercise is designed to validate rather than stress-test, a second problem follows: People stop being honest. Nobody says, “I don’t know who owns that decision” or “we have never actually tested that recovery path.” They say what sounds right. And the gaps that should surface in a controlled environment stay hidden until they surface in a real one.

Ce qu’un bon exercice permet réellement d’évaluer

Before you build a scenario, you need to answer a simpler question: What do you actually want to learn? Not 20 things. Three or four.
Can your team make a shutdown decision fast enough, and does everyone know who has the authority to make it? When security, IT, legal, and communications are all in the room with conflicting priorities, can they actually reach decisions together? Can you explain the business impact of an incident clearly enough for leadership to act – not just understand? And if you had to restore a critical system in the next four hours, could you really do it?

Once you know what you are testing, build a scenario with real friction. Make a key person unavailable mid-exercise. Introduce a customer escalation. Have a regulator ask a question the team cannot answer from the runbook.
Give people incomplete information and see how they make decisions anyway. The value is not in watching people succeed under pressure. It is in finding the places where the process breaks down while the stakes are still low enough to fix it.

Dites ceci à voix haute dès le début : « Aujourd’hui, réussir, c’est identifier les problèmes, pas faire bonne impression. » Cette simple phrase change la façon dont les gens s’expriment dans la salle.

Le problème des personnes

Une simulation qui se limite aux services de sécurité et informatiques relève d’une discussion technique, et non d’un exercice de gestion d’incident. Si le service juridique n’est pas présent, si le service de communication n’est pas présent, si les responsables métier et la direction générale sont absents, vous ne testez pas la manière dont votre organisation réagit réellement à une crise. Vous testez simplement la façon dont un groupe de personnes compétentes analyse un scénario hypothétique. Les incidents réels sont gérés à tous les niveaux de l’entreprise. L’exercice doit refléter cette réalité.

Il ne suffit pas d’en parler

This is where most organizations stop short. A paper exercise is important – but it is not confidence.
Talking through a recovery scenario tells you something. Actually restoring a system tells you something different. Can you bring identity back to a clean point in time? Can you validate that what you are recovering is trustworthy? Can you restore a Tier 1 application and confirm it comes back cleanly, without carrying the infection with it?

Those are not questions you can answer in a conference room. At some point, the plan has to meet the environment – and you need to know whether they match.

Une fois l’exercice terminé

The debrief tells you whether the exercise mattered. If the hot wash is quiet, vague, or full of “good reminders,” the exercise did not push hard enough. A well-run tabletop should leave you with a short list of real findings, clear owners, and deadlines. If you cannot answer what broke, who is fixing it, and by when, you ran an event, not an exercise.
The goal was never to pass the exercise. It was to learn something important while the cost of being wrong was still just time.
Watch our recent episode of the STRIVE podcast, where I join my colleague Chris Mierzwa, Senior Director, Portfolio Marketing, for une discussion approfondie sur les exercices sur table.

FAQ

Q : Pourquoi la plupart des exercices sur table ne parviennent-ils pas à apporter une réelle valeur ajoutée ?

R : De nombreux exercices sont conçus pour donner l’impression que les équipes sont bien préparées, plutôt que pour mettre en évidence leurs faiblesses. Cela conduit à des discussions « scénarisées » qui ne reflètent ni l’imprévisibilité ni la pression des incidents réels.

Q : Quel devrait être l’objectif d’un exercice sur table ?

R : Il convient de se concentrer sur un petit nombre de questions essentielles, telles que la rapidité de la prise de décision, la clarté des responsabilités et la capacité de reprise. Cette approche permet aux équipes de mettre en évidence des lacunes significatives plutôt que de se contenter d’observations superficielles.

Q : Comment les organisations peuvent-elles rendre leurs exercices plus réalistes ?

R : Introduisez des éléments d’incertitude, des informations manquantes et des perturbations imprévues au cours du scénario. Ces éléments obligent les équipes à faire preuve d’esprit critique et à agir sous pression, dans des conditions plus proches de celles d’un incident réel.

Q : Qui devrait participer à un exercice sur table ?

R : Outre les équipes chargées de la sécurité et de l’informatique, les équipes juridiques et de communication, ainsi que les responsables opérationnels et les cadres dirigeants, devraient y participer. Cela permet à l’exercice de refléter la manière dont les incidents réels sont gérés à l’échelle de l’organisation.

Q : Pourquoi ne suffit-il pas de parler de son rétablissement ?

R : Les discussions peuvent mettre en évidence les plans, mais seuls des tests concrets permettent de vérifier si les systèmes peuvent réellement être restaurés de manière propre et rapide. Une validation pratique est nécessaire pour confirmer que la reprise est prête.

Q : Qu’est-ce qui permet de considérer qu’un exercice sur table a été couronné de succès ?

R : Un exercice efficace débouche sur des conclusions claires, la désignation de responsables et la définition d’un calendrier précis pour la mise en œuvre des mesures correctives. Si ces éléments font défaut, c’est que l’exercice n’a probablement pas suffisamment mis l’équipe à l’épreuve.

Chris Bevil is Principal, Global Cyber Resilience & AI, at Commvault.

Every organization that has ever failed a recovery – and there are more than anyone publicly acknowledges – had one thing in common: They believed they could recover before they tried.

The belief came from somewhere. A completed tabletop exercise. A backup system that showed green. An annual disaster recovery test that passed. All of it documented. All of it, at some point, accurate. None of it current when the incident actually hit.

This is the confidence gap. And it is the gap that continuous recovery validation is designed to close.

What ‘Testing’ Actually Means in Most Organizations

Si l’on demande à la plupart des responsables de la sécurité ou de l’informatique à quelle fréquence ils testent leurs capacités de reprise, la réponse est généralement « une fois par an », voire « deux fois par an ». Le test consiste à restaurer un sous-ensemble de systèmes à partir d’une sauvegarde dans un environnement de test, à vérifier qu’ils démarrent correctement, puis à rédiger un rapport. Il arrive parfois qu’un exercice de simulation soit organisé en parallèle. Ce que ce type de test ne permet pas de faire : vérifier que les données sauvegardées ne contiennent pas de logiciels malveillants ; confirmer que la séquence de reprise fonctionne correctement pour des services interdépendants. Tester la Recovery, ce qui est essentiel lorsque ce sont des identifiants compromis qui ont permis l’attaque. Confirmer que l’équipe chargée d’exécuter la Recovery connaît les procédures opérationnelles en vigueur. Ni produire des preuves suffisamment probantes pour convaincre une autorité de régulation, un auditeur ou un conseil d’administration que la capacité de Recovery est réelle et à jour. En résumé, cela permet de valider un instant donné. Les opérations de résilience (ResOps) nécessitent une validation en continu.

Le modèle de validation continue

Continuous recovery validation is not a single test run more frequently. It is a set of integrated practices that produce ongoing, evidence-based proof of recoverability across critical services.

Automated backup integrity scanning. Every backup, continuously evaluated for anomalies, encryption patterns, and malware signatures. Not at restore time – before restore time. The goal is to know whether your recovery points are clean before you need them, not during an incident.

Scheduled Cleanroom Recovery drills. Bi-annual at minimum, restoring from immutable backup points into an isolated Cleanroom Recovery environment – not production, not a production-adjacent test environment, but a genuinely isolated space where forensic analysis can happen without risk of reinfection. These drills produce documented evidence of recoverability against defined impact tolerances.

Identity recovery validation. With l’utilisation frauduleuse d’identifiants est le vecteur d’intrusion le plus courant, Active Directory and Entra ID recovery must be tested alongside data recovery. Organizations that restore systems without restoring a verified-clean identity layer may find attackers re-enter through the same door.

Service Resilience Indicator (SRI) dashboards. SRIs – continuous signals drawn from backup telemetry, dependency mapping, and test results – that give CISOs, CIOs, and boards a live view of recoverability posture. Not a point-in-time report. An ongoing operational signal.

Each of these practices feeds what Deloitte and Commvault call the resilience backlog: a continuously updated, prioritized list of gaps identified through testing and tracked to resolution. It is the mechanism by which validation drives improvement rather than just producing reports.

Que signifie « temps moyen de reprise après un nettoyage » ?

Traditional recovery metrics – recovery time objective (RTO) and recovery point objective (RPO) – measure speed and data recency. They say nothing about whether the data being restored can be trusted. Mean Time to Clean Recovery (MTCR) fills that gap: It measures the time required to restore data that is verifiably clean, not just technically available.

MTCR matters because in a ransomware incident, the adversary’s goal is often to corrupt recovery options, not just encrypt production systems. An organization that restores quickly but restores from a compromised backup has not recovered. It has re-infected itself.

Building MTCR into your resilience measurement framework, alongside RTO and RPO, changes what you optimize for and what you report to the board. Speed plus recency plus integrity: that is the complete picture of recovery readiness.

Une résilience que vous pouvez démontrer

The organizations that navigate cyber disruptions with the least damage share one characteristic: They treat recovery capability as something to be continuously demonstrated, not periodically asserted. They know their MTCR. Their SRIs are current. Their cleanroom recovery has been tested in the last 90 days.

That posture is not the result of better technology alone. It is the result of an operating discipline – ResOps – that makes resilience continuous, measurable, and governable. Commvault’s platform provides the technical foundation: clean recovery, automated validation, and the unified visibility across data, identity, and services that ResOps requires at scale.

For the organizational side of that equation – how to define impact tolerances, align executive leadership, and build the governance structure that sustains the discipline – see the Deloitte companion blog, La discussion sur la résilience que votre conseil d’administration n’a pas encore abordée. Et pour découvrir l’ensemble du cadre ResOps, y compris les six domaines ResOps et le modèle de mesure qui relie la recouvrabilité technique à la responsabilité au niveau du conseil d’administration, consultez le livre blanc rédigé conjointement :De la viabilité minimale à la résilience opérationnelle : les ResOps en pratique.Bill O’Connell est directeur de la sécurité chez Commvault.

Key Takeaways:

• Cyberattacks increasingly target both production and backup environments, making clean, verifiable recovery essential.
• Integrated anomaly and threat detection strengthen cyber resilience by identifying compromised data, validating trusted recovery points, and accelerating restoration.
• When embedded into data-protection workflows, anomaly and threat detection capabilities can help provide the evidence needed to recover quickly, safely, and confidently.

Why Cyber Resilience Hinges on Integrated Anomaly and Threat Detection

Anomaly detection identifies unusual behavior in backup data that may indicate compromise. Threat detection identifies known malicious activity using signatures, heuristic analysis, and scanning techniques. Together, they help validate recovery points and enable clean data recovery.

For years, security leaders focused on preventing breaches. In today’s era of persistent attacks and AI-driven threats, organizations increasingly assume compromise and design systems that can withstand disruption and recover safely when it occurs.

Modern adversaries don’t always hide their presence – they reveal it when it serves their objective. Attackers try to infiltrate environments quietly, observe systems over time, and position themselves inside critical infrastructure. The moment an attack becomes visible is rarely the moment it begins; it is the moment the attacker chooses to act.

By then, compromised data may already be woven into backup copies. Integrated anomaly and threat detection can help organizations identify compromised backup data, validate clean recovery points, and assist recovery after a cyberattack.

For security and IT teams, the challenge is no longer simply detecting an attack but predicting and managing an attacker’s possible impact. Understanding what was affected, what remains trustworthy, and how the organization can recover safely without escalating business disruption is the solution.

This is why cyber resilience benefits tremendously from integrated anomaly and threat detection. When detection capabilities are embedded into data protection and recovery workflows, they help provide the shared intelligence that teams need to identify compromised data, validate trusted recovery points, and guide response decisions with evidence rather than guesswork.

This approach aligns with the emerging ResOps™ operating model, where security, IT, and recovery teams work from shared visibility and validated recovery paths to respond to incidents together.

The New Reality: Recovery Requires Proof, Not Assumptions

Traditional threat detection tools focus on spotting threats along the perimeter. But once attackers are inside, visibility can become fragmented and determining which systems and data have been affected becomes a challenge.

Further, attackers increasingly target backup environments specifically to undermine recovery. And the moment organizations cannot confidently prove that backups remain untouched, suspicion becomes unavoidable. The result is uncertainty. Restore quickly and risk reinfection? Or delay recovery while investigating which copies remain trustworthy? IT teams are forced to guess which data is safe while downtime accumulates.

By building intelligence directly into data protection workflows, anomaly and threat detection helps transform recovery from a reactive guess into a disciplined, evidence-driven process. These capabilities can help organizations pinpoint tampered copies, validate data cleanliness, and assemble the most recent uncompromised recovery points – helping you accelerate cyber recovery and reduce operational impact.

Anomaly Detection: Your Early Signal of the Unknown

Anomaly detection acts as a sentinel, guarding your protected data integrity. It establishes a baseline of normal behavior – file sizes, growth patterns, deduplication changes, access attempts – and alerts teams when something deviates from that norm. These deviations can surface signs of silent tampering long before malware signatures do. In an era of novel and polymorphic threats, anomaly detection helps offer what static tools can’t: visibility into the unexpected.

Threat Detection: Targeted Defense Against Known Malicious Activity

While anomalies reveal what’s unusual, threat detection exposes what is malicious. By scanning protected data directly for ransomware, malware signatures, encryption patterns, and custom indicators of compromise (IoCs), threat detection helps validate that the data you protect is not already compromised.

Why a Combined Approach Matters

Neither anomaly nor threat detection alone provides the full picture. Together, they deliver a defense-in-depth strategy: Anomaly detection can highlight suspicious signals while threat detection can probe deeper to verify malicious intent. This combination helps organizations distinguish harmless anomalies from true compromises and maintain reliable, validated data for rapid recovery.

Meeting Today’s Challenges with Commvault® Cloud

Attackers increasingly target backup environments, and hidden malware within backup data can increase the risk of reinfection during recovery. Organizations need data-driven validation for their clean recovery with certainty.Commvault Cloud addresses this by combining data protection workflows with anomaly detection, threat intelligence, AI-enabled analytics, and isolated clean instances. With anomaly and threat insights applied before, during, and after backup operations, Commvault can help empower organizations to recover faster, cleaner, and confidently.

Read the full white paper, “Can You Prove You’re Recoverable Right Now?”pour plus d’informations.

FAQ

Q: What is anomaly detection in data protection?

A: Anomaly detection identifies unusual behaviors – such as unexpected backup size changes or abnormal file activity – that may signal tampering, ransomware, or emerging threats within protected data.

Q: Why do CISOs need threat detection in their backup workflows?

A: Backup environments are now prime attacker targets. Threat detection helps prevent organizations from storing or restoring compromised data, which helps reduce reinfection risk and improve chances for clean recovery.

Q: How does Commvault help enable clean data recovery?

A: Commvault uses AI-assisted threat scanning, encryption detection, custom IoC matching, and cyber deception to help validate backup integrity and assemble the most recent uncompromised data for rapid recovery.

Q: Why combine anomaly and threat detection?

A: Anomalies identify the unknown; threat detection validates the known. Together, they provide comprehensive visibility into suspicious activity, helping enable faster investigation and more confident data recovery.

Liste de Paulineis Product Marketing Manager at Commvault