Cloud PKI: Select a Provider and Plan Migration

It supports selection of a hosted PKI operating model and the planned transition to it. We assess whether an offer fits your applications and responsibilities. The result is a reasoned decision with conditions, not an automatic recommendation to move to the cloud.

Cloud PKI is a broad service category. Microsoft Cloud PKI is a specific service for an Intune scenario. We therefore start with the use case, then assess a product candidate against its actual boundaries and the required integration.

We identify systems that request, install or validate certificates and the teams operating them. This includes infrequently updated or intermittently connected applications. The inventory helps expose trust dependencies that a seemingly simple CA change could otherwise overlook.

Each candidate is assessed against the same mandatory and scored criteria. Product documentation, contractual commitments and pilot results are shown separately. Open questions have owners; an overall score does not conceal missing evidence.

No. We assess the actual key model, administrative rights and supporting evidence within its stated scope. A general product label is insufficient. Your team’s remaining responsibilities are documented rather than assuming complete protection from the hosting model alone.

The responsibility matrix assigns issuance, permissions, changes, monitoring and incident handling. Each boundary has a responsible team. This makes clear before contracting which activities are purchased and which remain internal.

We select representative applications and test the full path from request to use. Renewal and error handling are also planned. An available API endpoint or successful issuance alone does not establish a usable integration.

We identify the process needing certificates, its identity and its permission boundaries. Errors, secrets and logs receive an explicit operating design. Automation is tested on selected workflows; compatibility with every pipeline is not assumed.

We assess workload identity, lifetime, ownership and actual certificate use. We then examine the provider’s supported integration and the intended renewal or replacement process. The product name alone does not demonstrate a suitable cluster integration.

Existing certificates, trust anchors and application dependencies are recorded first. These inform sequencing, the pilot and acceptance criteria. Old components are retired only after remaining use has been assessed. Planned coexistence has an explicit end state and accountable owners.

The pilot tests agreed use cases and relevant failure conditions. Results are recorded with configuration and scope. Passing the pilot establishes only that scope; additional platforms or greater load require their own evidence before acceptance.

We distinguish individual certificate state from provider-service and connected-application health. Each observation has an owner and a response. Reports and alerts are described in the operating design according to the information they actually provide.

Contractual objectives are compared with dependencies and your own response options. We walk through selected outage scenarios and document required procedures. A service-level commitment replaces neither a recovery test nor evidence of uninterrupted application operation.

Assessment uses a defined load profile and measurable criteria for your use cases. Provider limits and test conditions are retained in the results. Unlimited scaling or general speed improvements are not inferred from the cloud operating model.

The model includes usage, licensing, integration, internal operating work and a possible exit. Assumptions are explicit, with scenarios where uncertainty matters. Savings are a result of the actual comparison, not an inherent property of every hosted PKI.

It records data access, remaining trust relationships, interfaces and replacement tasks. Key or configuration transferability is assessed for the actual offer. Where transfer is unavailable, the plan needs to address replacement and transition.

No. Requirements are related to the actual use with the responsible specialists. Evidence and open issues are mapped transparently. A provider decision or technical pilot acceptance is neither certification nor a comprehensive legal assessment.

We agree review triggers such as changes to applications, costs, contract terms or product boundaries. Original assumptions remain traceable. The team can then assess changes deliberately rather than treating every product announcement as a reason to migrate immediately.