journal article·2026-02-02Open access

The Principle of Least Privilege in Microservices: A Systematic Mapping Study

Shouki A. Ebad, Marwa Amara

Applied Sciences· Volume 16· Issue 3

Abstract

While Microservice Architectures (MSAs) offer enhanced scalability and maintenance, they introduce significant complexity for access control and, specifically, the rigorous enforcement of the Principle of Least Privilege (PoLP). This lack of clear privilege boundaries is a major security vulnerability in microservice-based systems. To address this gap, this study conducts a systematic mapping study to provide a comprehensive guide and taxonomy on implementing PoLP in MSA. We identify and categorize existing mechanisms, best practices, and the technical and non-technical challenges encountered during implementation. The systematic search identified 25 primary studies, revealing a significant contribution from journal venues, particularly Computers & Security. Key findings detail the top technical challenges, including performance overhead, fragile container isolation, and authentication/authorization gaps inherent in service-to-service communication. Proposed mechanisms are categorized into four groups: policy and access control, code and configuration hardening, runtime/kernel-level methods, and general frameworks. Similarly, organizational challenges are grouped by people/culture, tooling/architecture, process/governance, and resource/expertise. This study provides a valuable roadmap and taxonomy for diverse security stakeholders. The identified research gaps—concerning AI integration, DevSecOps adoption, education, and dynamic analysis—underscore the need to shift from the currently predominantly theoretical approaches towards practical, experimental research to advance the real-world application of PoLP.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Software System Performance and Reliability · Information and Cyber Security · Security and Verification in Computing

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Center for Scientific Research and Entrepreneurship, Northern Border University, Arar 73213, Saudi Arabia

Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, Northern Border University, Arar 73213, Saudi Arabia

Funding

Deanship of Scientific Research with Northern Border University

References (46)

Show source-provided references
1. Exploring how to apply secure software design principles10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3227434 ↗
2. Adkins, H., Beyer, B., Blankinship, P., Lewandowski, P., Oprea, A., and Stubblefield, A. (2020). Building Secure and Reliable Systems: Best Practices for Designing, Implementing, and Maintaining Systems, O’Reilly Media.
3. Lewis, J., and Fowler, M. (2026, January 25). Microservices: A Definition of This New Architectural Term. Martin Fowler 2014. Available online: https://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html.
4. Mazzara, M., and Meyer, B. (2017). Microservices: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Present and Ulterior Software Engineering, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-67425-4 ↗
5. Securing microservices and microservice architectures: A systematic mapping study10.1016/j.cosrev.2021.100415 ↗
6. Waseem, M., Liang, P., Ahmad, A., Khan, A.A., Shahin, M., Abrahamsson, P., Nasab, A.R., and Mikkonen, T. (2023). Understanding the issues, their causes and solutions in microservices systems: An empirical study. arXiv.
7. Venčkauskas, A., Kukta, D., Grigaliūnas, Š., and Brūzgienė, R. (2023). Enhancing microservices security with token-based access control method. Sensors, 23.10.3390/s23063363 ↗
8. Newman, S. (2021). Building Microservices: Designing Fine-Grained Systems, O’Reilly Media. [2nd ed.].
9. Protection and the control of information sharing in Multics10.1145/361011.361067 ↗
10. (2014). Guide to Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC) Definition and Considerations (Standard No. NIST SP 800-162). Available online: https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/162/upd2/final.
11. (2020). Zero Trust Architecture (Standard No. NIST SP 800-207).
12. Revisiting the practices and pains of microservice architecture in reality: An industrial inquiry10.1016/j.jss.2022.111521 ↗
13. Kitchenham, B.A., Budgen, D., and Brereton, P. (2015). Evidence-Based Software Engineering and Systematic Reviews, Chapman & Hall/CRC.10.1201/b19467 ↗
14. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007 ↗
15. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews10.1136/bmj.n71 ↗
16. Petticrew, M., and Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9780470754887 ↗
17. Measuring software obfuscation quality—A systematic literature review10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3094517 ↗
18. Ebad, S.A., Alhashmi, A., Amara, M., Miled, A.B., and Saqib, M. (2025). Artificial intelligence-based software as a medical device (AI-SaMD): A systematic review. Healthcare, 13.10.3390/healthcare13070817 ↗
19. Thorn, S., English, K.V., Butler, K.R.B., and Enck, W. (2024). 5GAC-Analyzer: Identifying over-privilege between 5G core network functions. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Security and Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks (WiSec ’24), ACM.10.1145/3643833.3656134 ↗
20. Bufalino, J., Di Francesco, M., and Aura, T. (2023). Analyzing microservice connectivity with Kubesonde. Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2023), ACM.10.1145/3611643.3613899 ↗
21. Suneja, S., Kanso, A., and Isci, C. (2020). Can container fusion be securely achieved?. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Container Security (ContainerSec ’20), ACM.10.1145/3366615.3368356 ↗
22. Rastogi, V., Davidson, D., De Carli, L., Jha, S., and McDaniel, P. (2017). CIMPLIFIER: Automatically debloating containers. Proceedings of the 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE ’17), ACM.10.1145/3106237.3106271 ↗
23. Abbadini, M., Facchinetti, D., Rossi, M., Oldani, G., and Paraboschi, S. (2023). NatiSand: Native code sandboxing for JavaScript runtimes. Proceedings of the 38th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC ’23), ACM.10.1145/3607199.3607233 ↗
24. Rastogi, V., Niddodi, C., Mohan, S., and Jha, S. (2017). New directions for container debloating. Proceedings of the 2017 Workshop on Forming an Ecosystem Around Software Transformation (FEAST ’17), ACM.10.1145/3141235.3141241 ↗
25. Kermabon-Bobinnec, H., Gholipourchoubeh, M., Bagheri, S., Majumdar, S., Jarraya, Y., Pourzandi, M., and Wang, L. (2022). ProSPEC: Proactive security policy enforcement for containers. Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy (CODASPY ‘22), Baltimore, MD, USA, 24–27 April 2022, ACM.10.1145/3508398.3511515 ↗
26. Secure inter-container communications using XDP/eBPF10.1109/TNET.2022.3206781 ↗
27. Sankaran, A., Datta, P., and Bates, A. (2020). Workflow integration alleviates identity and access management in serverless computing. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC 2020), ACM.10.1145/3427228.3427665 ↗
28. Patel, A., Udayakumar, S.K., Laudya, R., Pandey, P., and Sheth, A. (2025). Dynamic secret injection for microservices in the cloud. Proceedings of the 2025 8th International Conference on Information and Computer Technologies (ICICT 2025), IEEE.10.1109/ICICT64582.2025.00018 ↗
29. Elastic cross-layer orchestration of network policies in the Kubernetes stack10.1109/TNSM.2025.3531040 ↗
30. Samonte, M.J.C., Aparize, J.E.R., Geronimo, J.M., and Oriño, C.C. (2024). Implementing zero trust security in microservice architecture of electronic health record. Proceedings of the 2024 4th International Conference on Computer Systems (ICCS), IEEE.10.1109/ICCS62594.2024.10795827 ↗
31. Gunathilake, K., and Ekanayake, I. (2024). K8s Pro Sentinel: Extend secret security in Kubernetes cluster. Proceedings of the 2024 9th International Conference on Information Technology Research (ICITR), Colombo, Sri Lanka, 5–6 December 2024, IEEE.10.1109/ICITR64794.2024.10857769 ↗
32. An empirical study of security practices for microservices systems10.1016/j.jss.2022.111563 ↗
33. Confine: Fine-grained system call filtering for container attack surface reduction10.1016/j.cose.2023.103325 ↗
34. Cordon: Enhancing security through kernel-level control in containerized computing environments10.1016/j.cose.2025.104644 ↗
35. Detection of compromised functions in a serverless cloud environment10.1016/j.cose.2024.104261 ↗
36. Enhancing cloud-native DevSecOps: A zero trust approach for the financial sector10.1016/j.csi.2025.103975 ↗
37. On the security of containers: Threat modeling, attack analysis, and mitigation strategies10.1016/j.cose.2023.103140 ↗
38. Proxy smart contracts for zero trust architecture implementation in decentralised oracle networks based applications10.1016/j.comcom.2023.04.022 ↗
39. Secure software development and testing: A model-based methodology10.1016/j.cose.2023.103639 ↗
40. Transfer fuzzy learning enabled Streebog cryptographic substitution permutation based zero trust security in IIoT10.1016/j.aej.2023.08.084 ↗
41. Zero trust cybersecurity: Critical success factors and a maturity assessment framework10.1016/j.cose.2023.103412 ↗
42. Park, N., Sun, K., Foresti, S., Butler, K., and Saxena, N. (2020). MisMesh: Security issues and challenges in service meshes. SecureComm 2020, Springer Nature.
43. Optimus: Association-based dynamic system call filtering for container environments10.1186/s13677-024-00639-3 ↗
44. (2026, January 25). The Kubernetes Authors. Kubernetes Documentation. Available online: https://kubernetes.io/docs/home/.
45. Pressman, R.S., and Maxim, B.R. (2019). Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, McGraw-Hill Education. [9th ed.].
46. Deep reinforcement learning for energy efficiency maximization in RSMA-IRS-assisted ISAC system10.1109/TVT.2025.3580859 ↗