Why On-Premises & Cloud VMS Deployments Demand a Shared Responsibility Approach to Cybersecurity

The choice between on-premises and cloud-based video management isn’t just a question of where servers live or how video gets stored. It’s a decision that fundamentally shapes cybersecurity responsibilities, shifts who manages which risks, and determines how protection gets maintained over the lifetime of the system.

On-premises and cloud-based video deployment models can deliver hardened, secure video systems, but both come with distinct strengths and trade-offs. The division of responsibility between vendor and customer differs, as do the types of threats each model faces, and the expertise required to keep systems protected. When organizations weigh their options, understanding these differences becomes critical to making decisions that align with their security requirements and operational capabilities.

Shared Responsibility, Different Owners

The most significant difference between on-premises and cloud deployments lies in who owns which aspects of the system’s security. On-premises systems place nearly all responsibility on the user organization. Cameras, servers, network connections, encryption keys, passwords and patches all fall under direct organizational control. Security depends on how well the system is designed, configured and maintained by internal IT teams or the systems integrator who deploys it.

Manufacturers develop and release security updates, but on-premises customers must download, test and apply the updates regularly. Cloud-based Video Security as a Service (VSaaS) solutions operate differently. The vendor assumes responsibility for most infrastructure security: managing servers, applying patches, ensuring recorded video is signed and securely stored, and monitoring for threats. But this doesn’t mean customers can hand off all security concerns. User access and permissions, and proper configuration, remain firmly in the customer’s domain. The vendor secures the platform; the customer secures how the platform gets used. Integrators deploying cloud solutions carry a responsibility to make this boundary explicit, helping customers understand exactly what the vendor manages and what remains the customer’s obligation from day one.

Unfortunately, this shared responsibility model often creates confusion. Organizations selecting cloud solutions sometimes assume that managed services mean fully handled security. In practice, customers still control who they grant access to their video and how those credentials are managed and revoked. The difference is that cloud customers don’t need to worry about whether underlying servers are properly hardened or databases are correctly configured. Those tasks shift to the vendor.

On-premises deployments demand comprehensive technical competency. Integrators must properly configure network security, manage certificates, maintain appropriate network isolation and ensure that connected devices don’t operate with default credentials. Beyond initial deployment, integrators serve as a critical ongoing resource by advising customers on emerging threats, recommending updates and helping them understand when configurations need revisiting. These tasks require specialized knowledge and consistent attention. Organizations get complete control, but that control comes with the obligation to exercise it correctly and continuously.

The vendor, of course, provides support throughout this process, offering guidance, documentation and technical assistance to both integrators and end users. But support doesn't shift the fundamental responsibility. Each party plays a critical role: developers create secure products and provide updates, integrators deploy and configure systems correctly and serve as trusted advisors throughout the system’s life, and organizations maintain devices and user permissions over time. System security depends on all three executing their parts consistently.

The result is two fundamentally different security postures, each requiring different skills, different processes and different ongoing commitments from everyone involved.

Network Exposure & Connectivity Models

Network connectivity creates another sharp distinction between deployment approaches. One possibility for on-premises deployments is that they can be air-gapped, physically isolated from the internet; another is that they can be protected behind layers of network segmentation. This isolation provides meaningful security benefits, particularly for organizations with highly sensitive environments or strict compliance requirements. When systems never touch the open internet, entire categories of remote attacks become irrelevant.

While air-gapping provides significant isolation, it doesn’t eliminate all threats. Insiders with physical access, compromised removable media or misconfigured network zones still pose risks. More critically, air-gapped systems can’t receive automatic updates or remote monitoring. Security becomes a manual process requiring someone to apply updates and verify configurations physically. When critical patches get delayed or missed, the air gap offers less protection than it appears to provide. Network segmentation bears the risk of misconfiguration, especially when policies fail to prevent insecure changes and exceptions.

Cloud-based systems, by design, remain connected to the internet, which means they face some degree of internet-exposed risk. However, cloud vendors typically invest in monitoring, intrusion detection and rapid response capabilities that most individual organizations struggle to match. Video data travels through cloud vendors’ infrastructure, protected by security teams who monitor for threats continuously.

Hybrid deployments represent a growing middle path, combining on-premises recording with cloud management or using edge devices that connect through cloud services. These systems inherit security considerations from both models while introducing unique challenges at their intersection. The connections between environments become critical security boundaries where misconfigured access points can expose networks, and poorly secured devices can become pathways for attacks.

Maintaining Security Over Time

It’s important to note that neither VMS deployment model delivers inherently superior security. On-premises systems provide control and network isolation, suiting organizations with strong IT teams and strict data sovereignty needs. Cloud systems transfer infrastructure management to vendors with specialized security teams and automated updating, often making more sense for organizations without dedicated security operations. Both can be configured well or poorly. Both offer strengths suited to different organizational contexts, risk profiles and operational requirements.

What remains constant across all deployment models is the fundamental requirement for shared commitment. Manufacturers must develop secure platforms and respond rapidly to emerging vulnerabilities. Integrators must deploy systems with security as a primary consideration, not an afterthought, and continue advising customers on their responsibilities as systems and threats evolve. Organizations must maintain vigilance through proper configuration, regular updates, and ongoing monitoring. No single party can deliver complete security alone.

The decision isn’t about selecting the most secure option in absolute terms. It’s about matching the security model to organizational capabilities and requirements, then ensuring all parties understand their responsibilities and execute them consistently. That partnership, maintained over time and adapted as systems and threats evolve, is what transforms security from a feature list into genuine protection.