3 security mistakes in public cloud, and how a sovereign cloud addresses them

In cloud computing, security remains a major concern for companies. Having supported many organisations through their digital transformation, I have seen the same mistakes come back again and again when it comes to managing security in a public cloud environment. Here are the three most common traps, and how a sovereign cloud addresses them.

Mistake 1: losing control of the data

The first instinct is often to migrate to the cloud without a clear view of data governance. What follows is an architecture where effective control is diluted between several parties.

In a traditional public cloud, your data crosses infrastructure managed by third parties, often subject to foreign jurisdictions. You lose visibility over who accesses your data, when and why.

Consequences for the company:

• Loss of control over your information assets, which can lead to critical data leaks
• No way to guarantee customers and partners the confidentiality of their information
• Heightened risk of industrial espionage and intellectual property theft
• Difficulty implementing a coherent and effective security policy
• In an incident, legal liability engaged despite the absence of operational control

The sovereign answer: a sovereign cloud guarantees that your data stays under national or European jurisdiction. The physical infrastructure, the staff and the governance processes are all located within a clear legal perimeter. That lets you keep full control over your information assets and know precisely who has access to them.

Mistake 2: regulatory non-compliance

Compliance is not optional. Yet many companies underestimate the complexity of the regulatory framework that applies to their data in a cloud environment. GDPR, the Swiss nFADP and sector rules (FINMA, healthcare in Switzerland) impose strict constraints. Hikube is not a French HDS host: the framework is Swiss (nFADP), with a DPA; Hikube does not certify your file.

In a multi-cloud environment, each provider can have its own compliance mechanisms, creating a patchwork that is hard to audit and maintain.

Consequences for the company:

• Financial penalties of up to 4% of worldwide turnover for GDPR breaches
• Being barred from operating in certain regulated sectors (healthcare, finance, defence)
• Loss of public and private contracts requiring specific certifications
• Remediation costs far higher than those of native integration
• Reputational damage and loss of trust from customers and partners
• Risk of claims and legal action from the individuals concerned

The sovereign answer: sovereign clouds are designed from the start to meet local regulatory requirements. They natively include compliance mechanisms suited to the European context and can adapt more easily to legislative change. The documentation and audit processes are also aligned with local standards, which eases certification work.

Mistake 3: legal exposure to extraterritorial law

This is perhaps the most insidious mistake, ignoring the implications of the US CLOUD Act or other extraterritorial legislation. These legal instruments can compel a foreign provider to disclose your data, sometimes without even telling you.

That legal exposure creates a major risk for sensitive data, whether strategic to your company or confidential for your customers.

Consequences for the company:

• Forced disclosure of confidential data to foreign authorities with no way to object
• Conflict of jurisdiction between European obligations (GDPR) and foreign orders
• Risk of double sanction, for having disclosed the data (under European law) or for having refused to disclose it (under foreign law)
• No way to guarantee confidentiality contractually to your customers and partners
• Strategic national information put at risk for companies working in sensitive sectors
• Loss of competitive advantage if sensitive commercial information becomes accessible to foreign competitors

The sovereign answer: a sovereign cloud frees you from these constraints by guaranteeing that your data is not subject to extraterritorial legislation. The companies operating that infrastructure answer only to national or European law, which offers stronger legal protection against foreign access requests.

Conclusion: towards a hybrid and pragmatic approach

Digital sovereignty is not only a political question, it is above all a matter of risk control. I observe that the most mature companies often take a hybrid approach: using the public cloud for certain standard workloads while keeping their sensitive data in a sovereign environment.

A sovereign cloud should not be seen as a constraint but as an enabler of secure digital transformation. It reconciles technical agility with risk control, particularly for regulated sectors and organisations handling sensitive data.

As a cloud architect, I recommend building digital sovereignty into your multi-cloud strategy as a key parameter, assessing precisely how sensitive your data is and which regulatory constraints apply to it.