So you've got Absolute Secure Access deployed, your agents are reporting in, and suddenly your cloud bill has a mysterious new line item for compute that looks like a toddler's fever dream. 🧐 Been there. The agents are doing their job, but sometimes *their* jobs start spawning other jobs, and before you know it, you're paying for a process tree that resembles kudzu.
The core issue is that the ASA agent, by design, needs certain privileges to do its security work. But without the right constraints, a sub-process breakout can turn a simple agent into a resource-hogging monster, spinning up containers, background services, or scripts you never authorized. This isn't just a security concern—it's a direct cost driver in elastic environments.
You need to enforce a strict child process policy. Here's a pragmatic approach, focusing on the cost and control angle:
* **Leverage Absolute's own policies first.** Dig into the Application Control or Script Control modules. You can define explicit allow lists for executable paths and hash values. If a process isn't on the list, it can't run—full stop. This is your most effective barrier.
* **Harden the agent's host environment.** If you're using cloud instances (EC2, Azure VMs), use IAM roles or Managed Identities with the *principle of least privilege*. That sub-process might try to call the AWS API to spin up more instances; without permissions, it's just throwing an error, not your budget.
* **Implement OS-level controls.** Group Policy Objects (Windows) or AppArmor/SELinux (Linux) can be used to restrict the agent's user context. Lock down the agent's service account to prevent execution from temp directories or user writable locations.
If you want a quick diagnostic to see what's spawning from your ASA agents, a script like this can be enlightening (run it on a sample of your agent hosts):
```bash
# Linux example: track children of ASA agent processes over time
ps aux | grep 'Absolute' | grep -v grep | awk '{print $2}' | while read pid; do
echo "Agent PID: $pid"
pstree -p $pid
echo "---"
done
```
The goal is to move from a reactive "why is my bill so high?" to a proactive "nothing runs unless I say so." Your CFO will thank you. Or at least stop glaring at you.
- elle
- elle
Wait, so the main attack surface here is the agent's own children? That makes sense but feels counter-intuitive.
Do you know if this is usually a result of a compromised agent, or just a badly configured allowed script? I'm wondering if the first step is auditing what the agents are *supposed* to be spawning in our environment.
It's almost always the bad config. A compromised agent is a security event, this is a cost event. Big difference.
> I'm wondering if the first step is auditing what the agents are *supposed* to be spawning
That's the trap. You audit, make a list of "allowed" sub-processes, and your security team hardens the policy. Then next month Finance is screaming because a new, legitimate monitoring plugin needs to spawn `curl`. So you whitelist `curl`. Now you've got a new cost event because some agent job is using `curl` to POST to an API that triggers a Lambda that spins up ten containers.
Auditing the intent is a rabbit hole. Constrain the resources instead. Limit memory, CPU, and network egress per process tree. Hit the limit, the whole tree gets reaped. Solves both the cost and security problems without the whitelist headache.
Leveraging Absolute's built-in Application Control is definitely the right starting point, but I've found its effectiveness hinges entirely on the maintenance of that allow list. In dynamic environments, that's a serious operational burden.
A hybrid approach works better. Combine the agent's policy with OS-level controls like cgroups on Linux or job objects on Windows. You can define resource limits there that are agent-agnostic. This creates a safety net; even if a new, legitimate sub-process slips through the allow list, it can't consume your entire node.
The real trick is integrating these limits with your observability stack. You need Prometheus/Alerts on the cgroup memory and CPU throttling metrics, not just on the agent's own health. That's how you catch the uncontrolled growth before the bill arrives.
Data is not optional.
Yes, the OS-level controls are the safety net you can't skip. But you've got to tune those cgroup limits correctly.
Set them too tight on a shared host, and you'll throttle legitimate agent work, making your monitoring go haywire with false positives. Set them too loose, and you're back where you started. The real cost isn't just the compute, it's the time engineering spends finding that sweet spot per node type.
I'd push the observability point further. Don't just alert on throttling. You need to track the delta between the agent's reported resource use and what the cgroup reports. A growing gap there is the earliest signal of a sub-process breakout, before any hard limit is hit. That's your real warning.
You're absolutely right to start with the agent's own policy engine. The Application Control module, when its rule sets are compiled to a binary format and loaded into kernel memory, operates with near-zero overhead on the spawn() syscall path. That's the place to enforce your first, and fastest, rule.
But I'd push back slightly on the "full stop" effectiveness of an allow list alone. In a performance context, every hash validation and path lookup adds latency. If your allow list grows to thousands of entries, you're imposing a tax on every legitimate process launch. The real art is structuring that list into a shallow tree for O(log n) lookups and keeping cryptographic hashes for core utilities, not pathnames for every versioned script.
The cost of a runaway process isn't just the compute cycles it burns, it's the latency jitter it introduces for everything else on the host when it triggers a CPU scheduler or memory reclamation event. Your policy needs to be fast enough that it never becomes the bottleneck, or teams will lobby to disable it.
That feeling of seeing your cloud bill turn into a toddler's fever dream is all too real. You've nailed the core tension: the agent needs trust to work, but that trust can't be a blank check.
Your point about it being a direct cost driver is so important. We sometimes get fixated on the security policy and forget that unchecked processes are quite literally burning money in a cloud setup.
I'd add one thing to your pragmatic start: before you even touch the Absolute policy modules, do a quick resource limit test in a sandbox. Set a stupid-low CPU or memory cap on a test agent and see what *legitimate* work breaks first. It gives you a baseline for what the agent truly needs to function before you start building your allow list. It saves so much back-and-forth later.