Skip to main content

Residual Gaps

Purpose​

This page documents the actual remaining security weaknesses of the Scheol Security Lab.

The objective is to:

  • provide a clear view of what is not yet under control
  • highlight high-impact exposure points
  • support risk-driven prioritisation

This page reflects the current reality of the lab, not a theoretical target.

Key Principle​

Residual gaps are expected and accepted at this stage.

The goal is not to eliminate all gaps, but to:

  • understand them
  • prioritise them
  • reduce them progressively

Critical Gaps (High Priority)​

1. Uncontrolled Administrative Access Path​

Description

  • No bastion host
  • Administrative access partially direct (SSH)
  • No strong isolation between personal and admin environments

Impacted Risk

Impact

  • Full infrastructure compromise possible

Priority 🔴 Critical

2. Lack of Network Segmentation​

Description

  • No strong isolation between services
  • Trust zones defined but not enforced
  • Potential lateral movement between components

Impacted Risk

Impact

  • Compromise of one service may lead to full environment compromise

Priority 🔴 Critical

3. Absence of Centralized Logging & Detection​

Description

  • Logs mostly local
  • No SIEM or correlation
  • No reliable detection capability

Impacted Risks

Impact

  • Attacks may remain undetected

Priority 🔴 Critical

Important Gaps (Medium Priority)​

4. Weak Data Isolation (Dolibarr / DB)​

Description

  • Application and database not strongly isolated
  • No strict access control between components

Impacted Risk

Impact

  • Data exposure in case of application compromise

Priority 🟠 High

5. Incomplete Application Hardening​

Description

  • Hardening not consistent across services
  • No formal vulnerability management

Impacted Risk

Impact

  • Increased likelihood of exploitation

Priority 🟠 High

Structural / Deferred Gaps (Accepted)​

6. No Centralized Identity Provider​

Description

  • No LDAP / AD
  • Identity still decentralized

Impact

  • Limited access control consistency

Priority 🟡 Medium (Deferred)

7. Backup Strategy Not Fully Mature​

Description

  • Reliance on snapshots
  • No immutable external backups yet

Impact

  • Recovery limitations in worst-case scenarios

Priority 🟡 Medium (Planned)

Gap Prioritisation Logic​

Gaps are prioritised based on:

  • direct link to current risks (R-001 to R-003)
  • exposure level (Internet-facing vs internal)
  • impact on full compromise scenarios

Priority levels:

  • 🔴 Critical → must be addressed early
  • 🟠 High → important but not blocking
  • 🟡 Medium → accepted or planned

Key Takeaways​

  • The lab is currently most exposed through administrative access and lateral movement
  • Detection capability is the weakest point across all risks
  • Some gaps are intentional and aligned with lab maturity

Current Maturity​

Residual risk exposure is considered high but controlled.

Strengths​

  • risks are clearly identified
  • gaps are explicitly documented
  • prioritisation is defined

Weaknesses​

  • several critical controls not yet implemented
  • limited detection capability
  • incomplete isolation between components

Evolution Strategy​

The next phase should focus on:

  1. Securing administrative access (bastion)
  2. Implementing segmentation
  3. Deploying centralized logging

These actions provide the highest security gain for the lowest complexity increase.