Can a cloud provider's security team recommend leaving their own platform?

This is the core of the conflict of interest. A cloud provider that also sells security has a financial incentive to recommend solutions that strengthen platform adoption. An independent MSSP has no cloud SKUs to protect, so its recommendations are not tied to any vendor's ecosystem.

Is bundled cloud security cheaper?

On the surface, yes, because costs are often consolidated into an existing cloud bill. But a fair cost comparison must account for whether monitoring coverage is equivalent, whether threat hunting is included, and what the switching cost is if you change cloud providers in the future. Security vendor lock-in is more expensive than ordinary cloud service lock-in.

Does OJK regulate which MSSP a bank can use?

POJK 11/2022 does not mandate a specific MSSP, but it requires due diligence when selecting third parties including security providers. Independence from your infrastructure vendor is a factor worth documenting in your OJK due diligence file.

What does multi-cloud mean for security?

A multi-cloud strategy means using more than one cloud provider. An independent MSSP can monitor and protect multi-cloud environments consistently from a single point. Cloud-bundled security is typically optimised for its own platform, leaving gaps across other providers.

Independent MSSP vs cloud provider security

After choosing a cloud provider, buying the security package from the same provider is the path of least resistance. Google Cloud offers its Security MSSP program, AWS has Security Hub and managed services, and both promise seamless integration. This feels logical, and some of it is.

But there is a question rarely asked in that purchasing process: when your security team detects a problem, do they have an incentive to recommend a solution that reduces your cloud usage, or one that increases it?

The conflict of interest that rarely gets discussed

Cloud providers are businesses with per-account revenue targets. The security services they sell do not sit in a silo separate from their main sales team.

Cloud-bundled security

Natively integrated with your cloud platform, which makes deployment faster. But the team managing it is the same team that wants you to use more cloud services. Its recommendations are structurally difficult to make fully neutral.

Independent MSSP

Has no cloud SKUs to protect. Its recommendations can suggest reducing cloud services, moving to a different provider, or even returning to on-premise for certain workloads, because there is no direct financial cost to that advice.

This is not an accusation of bad faith. It is the same structural problem that exists when a financial auditor also sells consulting to the same client, or when an investment adviser earns commissions from the products they recommend.

Practical comparison

	Cloud-bundled security	Independent MSSP
Recommendation neutrality	Tied to vendor ecosystem	No vendor incentive
Multi-cloud coverage	Optimised for own platform, limited beyond it	Consistent across all clouds and on-premise
Future migration flexibility	Security deepens lock-in to one cloud	Does not add switching cost to infrastructure changes
Threat hunting depth	Depends on tier selected	Threat hunting as a core service, not an upsell
Indonesian compliance (OJK, UU PDP)	Global templates, rarely adapted for local regulations	Dedicated OJK, POJK 11, UU PDP, BSSN playbooks
Local threat intelligence	Global telemetry, limited Indonesia specificity	Threat intelligence relevant to the Indonesian context
Incident accountability	Within the same ecosystem as your infrastructure provider	Separate from infrastructure provider, independent contract

When cloud-bundled security makes sense

Not every situation requires an independent MSSP. There are scenarios where bundled cloud security is a reasonable choice.

Early-stage startup with zero security teamWorkloads with no regulatory sensitivitySingle cloud, no multi-cloud plansVery constrained budget and native integration meaningfully reduces operational cost

For organisations outside these conditions, particularly those operating in financial services, healthcare, or government in Indonesia, deeper consideration is warranted.

When independence becomes critical

1
Regulations require independent third-party oversight
OJK explicitly emphasises the importance of independent third-party oversight in cybersecurity governance. Using a MSSP from the same provider as your infrastructure can weaken the independence argument in an audit.
2
You run a multi-cloud or hybrid strategy
A cloud provider's own security offering has no incentive to optimally protect workloads on a competitor's cloud. The result is blind spots in your hybrid environment.
3
An incident could implicate the cloud provider
When a security investigation points to the configuration or policies of the cloud platform itself, a security team from that same provider has a structural conflict of interest in reporting its findings completely.
4
You plan to change or add cloud providers
Security that is decoupled from infrastructure makes provider changes far easier. You do not need to restructure your security posture every time an infrastructure decision changes.

Questions to ask every provider

Before deciding, ask each candidate directly, whether a cloud provider or independent MSSP: has a recommendation ever advised a client to reduce cloud usage or change providers? How do they handle situations where a security threat originates from the cloud platform's own configuration? How many of their clients run multi-cloud environments, and what does coverage look like across providers?

The answers to these questions are more informative than any brochure.

Independent MSSP vs bundled cloud security: which is right for you?

The conflict of interest that rarely gets discussed

Practical comparison

When cloud-bundled security makes sense

When independence becomes critical

Questions to ask every provider

Frequently asked questions

Related

Our services

Ready to strengthen your security posture?