![]() |
市場調查報告書
商品編碼
1848842
無伺服器安全市場按服務類型、安全解決方案類型、部署模式、最終用戶產業和組織規模分類 - 全球預測,2025-2032 年Serverless Security Market by Service Type, Security Solution Type, Deployment Model, End Use Industry, Organization Size - Global Forecast 2025-2032 |
||||||
※ 本網頁內容可能與最新版本有所差異。詳細情況請與我們聯繫。
預計到 2032 年,無伺服器安全市場將成長至 250.2 億美元,複合年成長率為 29.98%。
| 關鍵市場統計數據 | |
|---|---|
| 基準年 2024 | 30.6億美元 |
| 預計年份:2025年 | 40億美元 |
| 預測年份 2032 | 250.2億美元 |
| 複合年成長率 (%) | 29.98% |
無伺服器運算透過抽象基礎設施並加速價值實現,正在重塑企業設計、部署和保護數位服務的方式。這種演進要求安全措施從基於邊界和主機的管理轉向識別、運行時遙測和策略驅動的自動化。隨著無伺服器運算的普及,安全領導者將面臨新型運行時模型、分散式資料流和新興攻擊手法的整合,這需要對預防、偵測和復原能力進行新的整合。
因此,任何對無伺服器安全性的介紹都應強調從傳統的以基礎設施為中心的管理轉向基於能力的保護,以適應持續交付和臨時執行。安全負責人越來越需要將控制措施整合到開發平臺中,在各個功能中強制執行最小權限原則,並利用可觀測性來偵測高度動態環境中的異常情況。在實踐中,這意味著需要重新思考工程、保全行動和管治的職責,以便將安全性更早嵌入生命週期中,並實現威脅感知設計。
受技術成熟度、可組合架構和不斷演變的監管環境的驅動,無伺服器安全格局正在發生顯著變化。功能級抽象化和後端即服務 (BaaS) 模式加快了開發速度,同時也將風險分散到 API、身分架構和第三方整合。因此,安全負責人必須做出調整,優先考慮在服務和 API 邊界運行的控制措施,同時保持對瞬態執行環境的可觀測性。
同時,安全解決方案生態系統也在不斷發展,以應對 API 安全問題,包括細粒度的存取控制、威脅檢測和使用情況監控;合規性管理,包括審核、報告和規劃編配;強大的靜態和傳輸中資料加密,並輔以金鑰管理;身份和存取管理,包括多因素執行驗證、容器安全管理和單點登錄;這種轉變,加上對雲端原生工具和傳統安全堆疊編配的需求,正迫使企業重新思考其供應商選擇標準、整合模型和內部營運模式。因此,投資可組合、自動化安全功能的企業將更有能力在保持發展速度的同時降低系統性風險。
到2025年,美國關稅政策的累積影響將為依賴全球供應鏈、託管服務和軟體授權的企業帶來複雜的營運和策略考量。關稅將影響供應商的採購決策、採購前置作業時間以及支撐雲端服務供應商生態系統的硬體和配套服務的總擁有成本。雖然無伺服器運算減少了對本地伺服器的依賴,但供應商供應鏈中的許多環節——邊緣硬體、用於金鑰管理的安全元件以及第三方設備——仍然對貿易政策的變化十分敏感。
因此,安全採購團隊需要重新評估供應商多元化、合約條款和庫存策略,以降低關稅帶來的波動。這需要與負責人、法務和雲端服務負責人密切合作,以了解轉嫁成本、服務等級調整和區域部署經濟性的潛在變化。此外,企業還需要評估策略選擇,例如增加對公有雲原生功能的依賴、重新平衡公有雲、私有雲和混合雲部署,以及研究供應商在地化方案,以管理資料主權和合規性風險。簡而言之,2025 年的關稅趨勢將促使安全和 IT 領導者將地緣政治和貿易因素納入其架構規劃、採購決策和長期彈性策略中。
細分洞察需要將結構分類轉化為營運優先級,從而指導產品選擇、整合工作和管治設計。在評估服務類型時,對比後端即服務 (BaaS) 和函數即服務 (FaaS) 可以凸顯安全性挑戰:後端即服務強調託管資料儲存、存取模式和統一的身分層,而函數即服務則需要細粒度的執行時間保護、短期憑證和進階遙測技術來偵測異常函數行為。在這些模型之間切換會改變控制措施的實施位置和事件回應的執行方式。
同樣,對安全解決方案類型進行細分有助於明確功能優先順序。 API 安全涵蓋存取控制、威脅偵測和使用情況監控,成為保護連接無伺服器元件介面的主要控制平面。合規性管理(包括策略管理、審核和彙報)驅動著對不可變日誌、策略即程式碼和可驗證控制的要求。資料加密對於維護分散式功能的機密性至關重要,包括靜態加密、傳輸中加密和金鑰管理。身分和存取管理透過多因素身份驗證、權限管理和單一登入支援安全的開發人員和執行時間存取。運行時保護包括容器安全、運行時應用程式自我保護和沙箱安全,為運行中的工作負載提供最後一道防線。透過檢視混合雲、私有雲端雲和公有雲部署模型的詳細情形,領導者可以確定哪些功能是原生功能,哪些功能是透過第三方控制強制執行的,以及整合工作的重點應該放在哪裡。最後,按最終用戶產業(銀行、金融服務和保險、政府和公共部門、醫療保健、資訊科技和通訊、零售和電子商務)進行細分,可以發現不同的合規性、資料駐留和威脅概況要求。依組織規模(大型企業與小型企業)進行細分,也能凸顯採購週期、內部能力以及對託管服務和客製化控制的接受度的差異。綜合這些因素,您可以根據組織的風險承受能力和監管義務,精準地調整架構、控制措施和營運模式。
區域動態對無伺服器安全性的優先排序和實施方式有顯著影響。在美洲,監管機構通常關注隱私、違規通知和智慧財產權保護,因此企業優先考慮資料加密、身分管治和強大的審核追蹤。相反,歐洲、中東和非洲地區(EMEA)的監管預期和主權考量錯綜複雜,影響區域部署決策和更嚴格的政策控制框架。該市場通常要求資料駐留於歐洲或區域層面,並需要詳細的合規性報告,這會影響供應商的選擇和架構方案。
在亞太地區,雲端運算的快速普及和管理體制的多樣性,既為安全領導者帶來了創新機遇,也帶來了挑戰。許多亞太企業正努力平衡快速的數位轉型時間表與日益完善的隱私法規以及對跨境資料流動的嚴格審查。因此,該地區的安全架構強調靈活的部署模式、強大的金鑰管理策略以及能夠適應混合雲和本地化公共雲端配置的執行時間保護。這些區域差異凸顯了製定區域性安全策略的必要性,這些策略需要考慮到不同的監管環境、區域威脅情勢以及雲端原生安全實踐成熟度的差異。
在無伺服器安全領域,各公司的策略體現了三大優先事項的整合:與雲端原生平台深度整合、從 API 到運行時的持續增強,以及能夠降低企業採用門檻的夥伴關係。許多領先供應商正在投資遙測整合、策略即程式碼和以開發者為先的工作流程,以確保安全成為持續交付的一部分,而不是阻礙速度的因素。這一趨勢還包括擴展產品組合,以提供兼顧預防性功能(例如存取控制和資料加密)以及偵測和回應功能(例如運行時應用程式自我保護和進階威脅偵測)。
此外,競爭格局預示著相鄰領域的整合趨勢,因為供應商都在尋求全面覆蓋 API 安全、身分和存取管理以及執行時間保護。同時,模組化廠商透過垂直產業產品實現差異化,為具有嚴格合規要求的產業提供預先建構的審核和報告範本以及特定區域的控制措施。安全廠商與雲端供應商之間的夥伴關係日益成熟,因此能夠實現更快的部署和更原生的控制平面。對於買家而言,評估供應商的藍圖至關重要,重點關注整合深度、對開放標準的承諾以及在保持操作簡便性和強大管治的同時支援混合雲端和多重雲端拓撲的能力。
產業領導者必須採取務實且行動導向的方法,確保無伺服器架構的安全,從而在開發者敏捷性和強大的管治之間取得平衡。首先,要將安全性融入開發生命週期,實施安全防護措施、策略即程式碼以及自動化測試,在部署前檢驗存取控制和加密。減少對長期憑證的依賴,建構以身分為先的方法,透過多因素身分驗證、權限管理以及跨功能和後端服務的一致單點登入整合,強制執行最小權限原則。
此外,投資於端到端可觀測性,將 API 使用情況、功能遠端檢測和基礎設施事件關聯起來,可確保威脅偵測具有上下文關聯性,並能快速對事件進行分類。優先考慮運行時保護措施(例如容器安全、運行時應用程式自我保護、沙箱),以限制攻擊視窗和橫向移動。從採購角度來看,優先選擇具有雲端原生夥伴關係關係和開放整合模式的供應商,並對合約的資費和供應鏈彈性進行壓力測試。最後,使管治和合規性與區域和特定產業需求保持一致,並參與持續學習和桌面演練,以檢驗在混合雲、私有雲和公有雲端部署中的事件回應能力。
這些調查方法旨在結合質性和量化方法,提供切實可行且論證充分的分析。研究人員首先對來自安全、工程、採購和合規等領域的從業人員進行了訪談,評估了營運實務和供應商選擇標準。此外,研究人員還對代表性架構、遙測模式和安全工具整合進行了技術審查,以檢驗關於控制措施部署和有效性的假設。
為確保上下文準確性,二級資訊來源包括供應商文件、已發布的技術標準、行業指南和法律規範。我們透過基於場景的分析進行交叉檢驗,檢驗了關稅變化、區域監管差異和部署模式選擇對安全架構和採購決策的影響。在整個研究調查方法中,我們強調可複製性、假設的透明度和實踐相關性,以確保最終的建議和細分洞察能夠應用於企業實施。
總之,確保無伺服器架構的安全性需要整合對開發者友好的管理、以身分為中心的存取控制、強大的加密以及根據部署和區域實際情況量身定做的自適應運行時保護。本文所述的變革性轉變強調,安全不再是事後考慮的問題,而必須融入服務設計、持續交付和供應商選擇的各個環節。那些採用策略即程式碼、遙測主導偵測和跨職能管治的領導者,將更有能力兼顧速度和安全這兩大目標。
展望未來,關稅壓力和區域監管差異將持續影響採購、部署和合規策略,凸顯供應鏈感知型採購和在地化方案的重要性。透過應用細分洞察和切實可行的建議,企業可以建立一個穩健的架構,在保持創新的同時降低營運風險並改善管理體制。
The Serverless Security Market is projected to grow by USD 25.02 billion at a CAGR of 29.98% by 2032.
| KEY MARKET STATISTICS | |
|---|---|
| Base Year [2024] | USD 3.06 billion |
| Estimated Year [2025] | USD 4.00 billion |
| Forecast Year [2032] | USD 25.02 billion |
| CAGR (%) | 29.98% |
Serverless computing reshapes how organizations design, deploy, and protect digital services by abstracting infrastructure and accelerating time to value. This evolution requires security practices to shift from perimeter and host-based controls toward identity, runtime telemetry, and policy-driven automation. As adoption matures, security leaders face a convergence of new runtime models, distributed data flows, and emergent threat vectors that demand a fresh synthesis of prevention, detection, and resilience.
Consequently, the introductory framing of serverless security must underscore the transition from traditional infrastructure-centric controls to capability-based protection that aligns with continuous delivery and ephemeral execution. Security owners are increasingly expected to integrate controls into development pipelines, enforce least privilege across functions, and instrument observability to detect anomalies in highly dynamic environments. In practice, this means rethinking responsibilities across engineering, security operations, and governance to embed security earlier in the lifecycle and to operationalize threat-aware design.
The landscape of serverless security is undergoing transformative shifts driven by technology maturation, composable architectures, and heightened regulatory attention. Function-level abstraction and Backend as a Service paradigms accelerate development velocity, yet they also redistribute risk into APIs, identity fabrics, and third-party integrations. As a result, security leaders must adapt by prioritizing controls that operate at the service and API boundaries while maintaining observability across ephemeral execution contexts.
In parallel, the security solutions ecosystem is evolving to address API Security with granular access control, threat detection, and usage monitoring; compliance management with audit and reporting plus policy orchestration; robust data encryption both at rest and in transit complemented by key management; identity and access management featuring multi-factor authentication, privilege management, and single sign-on; and runtime protection that encompasses container security, runtime application self-protection, and sandboxing. These shifts necessitate orchestration across cloud-native tooling and traditional security stacks, prompting enterprises to reconceive vendor selection criteria, integration models, and internal operating models. Consequently, organizations that invest in composable, automated security capabilities will be better positioned to sustain velocity while reducing systemic risk.
The cumulative effects of tariff changes in the United States during 2025 introduce complex operational and strategic considerations for organizations reliant on global supply chains, managed services, and software licensing. Tariffs influence vendor sourcing decisions, procurement lead times, and the total cost of ownership for hardware and bundled services that underpin cloud provider ecosystems. Although serverless computing reduces dependency on on-premises servers, many elements of the vendor supply chain-edge hardware, secure elements used for key management, and third-party appliances-remain sensitive to trade policy shifts.
Consequently, security procurement teams must reassess supplier diversification, contractual terms, and inventory strategies to mitigate tariffs-driven volatility. This requires closer collaboration with procurement, legal, and cloud providers to understand pass-through costs, service level adjustments, and potential shifts in regional deployment economics. Moreover, organizations should evaluate strategic alternatives such as increased reliance on public cloud-native capabilities, a rebalanced mix between public, private, and hybrid deployments, and deeper scrutiny of vendor localization options to manage data sovereignty and compliance risks. In short, tariff dynamics in 2025 act as a forcing function for security and IT leaders to incorporate geopolitical and trade considerations into architecture planning, sourcing decisions, and long-term resilience strategies.
Segmentation insight requires translating structural categories into operational priorities that inform product selection, integration effort, and governance design. When assessing service type, the contrast between Backend As A Service and Function As A Service surfaces distinct security imperatives: Backend As A Service emphasizes managed data stores, access patterns, and integrated identity layers, whereas Function As A Service demands granular runtime protection, short-lived credentials, and elevated telemetry to detect anomalous function behavior. Transitioning between these models changes where controls must be enforced and how incident response is executed.
Equally, security solution type segmentation clarifies capability priorities. API Security-spanning access control, threat detection, and usage monitoring-becomes the primary control plane for protecting interfaces that stitch serverless components together. Compliance Management-encompassing audit and reporting plus policy management-drives requirements for immutable logs, policy-as-code, and demonstrable controls. Data Encryption in its full stack of at-rest encryption, in-transit encryption, and key management is essential for preserving confidentiality across distributed functions. Identity and Access Management, through multi-factor authentication, privilege management, and single sign-on, underpins secure developer and runtime access. Runtime Protection, which includes container security, runtime application self-protection, and sandbox security, provides the last line of defense for executing workloads. By reflecting on deployment model segmentation across hybrid cloud, private cloud, and public cloud, leaders can map which capabilities will be native versus applied through third-party controls and where integration effort will concentrate. Finally, end-use industry segmentation such as Banking Financial Services And Insurance, Government Public Sector, Healthcare, Information Technology And Telecom, and Retail And Ecommerce reveals differentiated compliance, data residency, and threat profile requirements, while organization size segmentation between Large Enterprises and Small And Medium Enterprises highlights variations in procurement cycles, in-house capability, and tolerance for managed services versus custom controls. Together, these dimensions enable a precise alignment of architecture, controls, and operating model to an organization's risk appetite and regulatory obligations.
Regional dynamics materially influence how serverless security practices are prioritized and implemented across jurisdictions. In the Americas, regulatory focus often converges on privacy, breach notification, and intellectual property protections, prompting organizations to emphasize data encryption, identity governance, and robust audit trails. Conversely, the Europe, Middle East & Africa region presents a mosaic of regulatory expectations and sovereignty considerations that drive localized deployment decisions and tighter policy management frameworks. Markets in this region frequently demand European or regional data residency and nuanced compliance reporting, which impacts vendor selection and architecture choices.
Across Asia-Pacific, rapid cloud adoption and diverse regulatory regimes create both innovation opportunities and complexity for security leaders. Many organizations in Asia-Pacific balance aggressive digital transformation timelines with developing privacy regimes and increasing scrutiny on cross-border data flows. Therefore, security architectures in this region place a premium on flexible deployment models, strong key management strategies, and runtime protections that can be adapted to hybrid and localized public cloud configurations. These regional distinctions underline the need for a geography-aware security strategy that accounts for regulatory variance, local threat landscapes, and differing maturity levels among cloud-native security controls.
Company strategies in the serverless security space reflect three converging priorities: deep integration with cloud-native platforms, expanded capabilities across the API-to-runtime continuum, and partnerships that reduce friction for enterprise adoption. Many leading vendors are investing in telemetry integration, policy-as-code, and developer-first workflows to ensure security becomes part of continuous delivery rather than an impediment to velocity. This trend also includes widening portfolios to offer both prevention-focused features-such as access control and data encryption-and detection and response capabilities like runtime application self-protection and advanced threat detection.
Moreover, competitive dynamics show consolidation in adjacent categories as vendors seek to cover API security, identity and access management, and runtime protection holistically. At the same time, modular players are differentiating through verticalized offerings aimed at industries with stringent compliance needs, providing prebuilt audit and reporting templates and region-specific controls. Partnerships between security vendors and cloud providers continue to mature, enabling faster deployment and more native control planes. For buyers, this implies evaluating vendor roadmaps for integration depth, commitment to open standards, and the ability to support hybrid and multi-cloud topologies while maintaining operational simplicity and strong governance.
Industry leaders must adopt a pragmatic, action-oriented approach to secure serverless architectures that balances developer agility with robust governance. Start by embedding security into the development lifecycle through guardrails, policy-as-code, and automated testing that validate access controls and encryption practices before deployment. Build identity-first approaches that reduce reliance on long-lived credentials and enforce least privilege using multi-factor authentication, privilege management, and single sign-on integrations that are consistent across functions and backend services.
Additionally, invest in end-to-end observability that correlates API usage, function telemetry, and infrastructure events so that threat detection is contextually aware and incidents are triaged rapidly. Prioritize runtime protection measures-container security, runtime application self-protection, and sandboxing-to limit exploitation windows and contain lateral movement. From a procurement perspective, favor vendors with deep cloud-native partnerships and open integration models, and stress test contracts for tariff and supply chain resiliency. Finally, align governance and compliance practices with regional requirements and industry-specific needs, and commit to continuous learning and tabletop exercises that validate incident response across hybrid, private, and public cloud deployments.
The research methodology underpinning these insights combines qualitative and quantitative approaches designed to produce actionable, defensible analysis. Primary interviews with practitioners across security, engineering, procurement, and compliance informed the assessment of operational practices and vendor selection criteria. These interviews were complemented by technical reviews of representative architectures, telemetry patterns, and security tool integrations to validate assumptions about control placement and efficacy.
Secondary sources comprised vendor documentation, public technical standards, industry guidance, and regulatory frameworks to ensure contextual accuracy. Cross-validation occurred through scenario-based analysis that tested the implications of tariff changes, regional regulatory variance, and deployment model choices on security architecture and procurement decisions. Throughout, the methodology emphasized reproducibility, transparent assumptions, and practitioner relevance to ensure the resulting recommendations and segmentation insights are practical for enterprise implementation.
In conclusion, securing serverless architectures demands a synthesis of developer-friendly controls, identity-centric access, robust encryption, and adaptive runtime protections aligned to deployment and regional realities. The transformational shifts described here underscore that security is no longer an afterthought; it must be integrated into the fabric of service design, continuous delivery, and vendor selection. Leaders who embrace policy-as-code, telemetry-driven detection, and cross-functional governance will be better positioned to manage the dual objectives of speed and safety.
Looking ahead, tariff pressures and regional regulatory divergence will continue to influence sourcing, deployment, and compliance strategies, reinforcing the importance of supply chain-aware procurement and localization options. By applying the segmentation insights and actionable recommendations, organizations can create defensible architectures that sustain innovation while reducing operational risk and improving regulatory posture.