To ensure the security of sensitive internet data, it takes more than encryption; it requires clear principles, careful design, and evidential support.
Naman Jain is a Senior Software Development Engineer and a leading practitioner in secure systems for fintech and digital payments.
At Amazon, he has led the architecture of an enterprise tokenization and sensitive data platform, driven large scale migration from decades old legacy systems to modern cloud native infrastructure while safeguarding high-value transactions and sensitive data for millions of users, and co-invented a pending tokenization approach that reduces cost while improving resilience.
During this interview, he explains why tokenization has become an integral part of infrastructure, how Zero Trust changes our day-to-day architectures, and what it takes to run secure platforms at web scale.
He also shares what keeps him motivated and how the next five years will reshape data protection.
In addition, he discusses how the next five years will change the face of data protection, as well as the motivation that keeps him moving forward in his foundational work that end-users rarely see but always rely on.
The concept of secure tokenization is gaining traction across industries. From your experience working on large-scale tokenization systems in industry, why is tokenization becoming such a foundational element in modern data infrastructure?
Tokenization has become foundational in modern data infrastructure, driven by two forces: more sophisticated security threats and tighter global regulations.
At its core, it replaces sensitive information — payment details, personal identifiers, or health records — with tokens that cannot be reversed and have no value without secure mappings and cryptographic controls.
From a security perspective, tokenization reduces the attack surface, limits blast radius when incidents occur, and supports Zero Trust by keeping real data accessible to only a small set of systems.
From a compliance perspective, it keeps regulated data only where needed while analytics, AI, and reporting work on tokenized data. This simplifies audits, helps meet GDPR, HIPAA, PCI, and data-localization rules, and speeds work in regulated global industries.
In practice, there are two main variants. Vault-based tokenization maps tokens to originals in a secure vault and suits environments that need centralized control, auditability, and legacy integration.
Vaultless tokenization uses cryptography to generate tokens without a central store, cutting latency and operational risk for cloud-scale, high-performance workloads.
Both are established; the right choice depends on regulation, scale, and risk appetite.
Tokenization is also expanding into new domains: in AI, where “tokenization” usually means text units for processing, security tokenization serves a different role—ensuring models and agents work only with safe, nonreversible data and enabling verifiable proof of authorized use.
In blockchain, sensitive data stays off-chain in secure environments while tokenized or hashed values live on-chain, preserving privacy, supporting requirements like the GDPR “right to be forgotten,” and enabling secure interoperability with traditional systems.
Looking ahead, tokenization adds a layer of defense as organizations prepare for a post-quantum world.
The bottom line: it lets businesses innovate, scale globally, and build customer trust while keeping security and compliance at the core.
From your experience, what guiding principles are most important when designing secure and scalable infrastructure for sensitive data?
When you design infrastructure for sensitive data, two words should guide every decision: trust and resilience.
First, adopt a Zero Trust mindset. Most risk comes from ordinary mistakes, not only malicious insiders. Design so every access is verified, every privilege is deliberate, and no single error can put the system at risk.
Second, make security and scalability evolve together. Design for both from day one so the system handles more transactions and more threats without slowing down. Build in tokenization, encryption in transit and at rest, strong key management, and keep latency low.
Third, isolate sensitive workloads. Separate regulated data from everything else so only a small set of systems can access real data; that makes protection and audits easier.
Fourth, design for failure and attack. Ask “what if,” plan for the worst, and use multi-region replication, disaster-recovery drills, and fallback paths that keep critical services running.
Finally, build for verifiability. Be ready to show clear proof of how data is protected — whether to a regulator or a customer—so trust is earned and demonstrated.
Treat these as essential nonfunctional requirements, and you get infrastructure that protects sensitive data even as threats and regulations evolve.
Zero Trust is increasingly becoming a standard in modern security thinking. In your view, why is this model gaining so much traction, and how does it change the way organizations think about trust and control in distributed systems?
Zero Trust is gaining traction because the old idea of a trusted physical or network perimeter no longer fits modern architectures. Today’s environments are built on cloud workloads, microservices, remote workforces, and interconnected third-party platforms. Add AI systems, IoT devices, and edge computing, and you get an ecosystem where data constantly flows across boundaries, so no single physical or network boundary can keep it all safe.
Zero Trust flips the old mindset of ‘trust by default, verify when needed’ to ‘never trust, always verify.’ It is not about paranoia, but about recognizing that threats can come from anywhere, for example, a compromised endpoint, a vulnerable AI integration, or even a well-meaning employee making a mistake.
Zero Trust requires organizations to design with the assumption that every request, whether from inside or outside the network, must be authenticated, authorized, and continuously validated. In distributed systems, that means granular controls at the service, workload, and data levels. In AI-driven workflows, it means models and agents access only the data they are authorized to use, with every interaction logged and auditable.
It also reshapes how we think about control: grant the minimum access needed, for the shortest time possible, and monitor access actively. These principles apply equally to cloud-native microservices, blockchain integrations, and AI pipelines, wherever data moves across systems.
The result is more than stronger defenses. Zero Trust reduces the blast radius of internal errors and system vulnerabilities. It is gaining traction because it matches the reality of today’s distributed, AI-enabled systems, treating every connection as potentially risky, and every access as a deliberate decision, not an assumption.
How did the idea of Vaultless Tokenization come, and how does this solution differ from the data protection methods that existed at the time?
The idea for vaultless tokenization came from a practical industry-wide challenge: how to protect sensitive data without bottlenecks or single points of failure. Historically, most data security solutions were storage-based. That can work for some less latency-sensitive workflows, but it introduces latency, operational complexity, and a dependence on one high-value target.
Vaultless tokenization flips that model. Instead of storing the original data in a vault, it uses cryptographic mechanisms to deterministically generate tokens on demand, without persisting the sensitive value in a retrievable form. This removes the central data store attackers could target, eliminates the vault as a scaling bottleneck, and reduces operational risk even if the tokenization service is compromised.
For service providers, vaultless also decouples security from storage. You can deliver the tokenization and detokenization logic, ensuring data security, while each business maintains its own storage, aligned to its compliance and audit requirements. This separation keeps you out of scope for many customers’ storage regulations and gives flexibility to meet geographic, regulatory, and operational needs without sacrificing security.
Existing methods such as vault-based tokenization, format-preserving encryption, and static masking have tradeoffs in performance, reversibility, or compliance complexity. Vaultless tokenization addresses these issues by combining strong cryptography with distributed architecture principles, making it high performance and resilient.
What excites me is that tokenization shifts from a security control to an architectural enabler: protect data at the edge, tokenize in real time, and meet strict compliance without slowing critical workflows.
Migrating from a decades old legacy on-premises system, managing over $1 trillion in transactions, and securing the data of millions of users…
How did you personally handle that level of responsibility? What helped you stay focused throughout?
Handling responsibility at that scale can feel daunting at first, but what has helped me in high stakes environments is shifting from doing everything myself to setting clear priorities, a shared mindset, and processes that scale through others.
First, I lean on clarity of purpose. It’s easy to get lost in the complexity, but keeping the goal of protecting people’s trust in critical systems helps me stay grounded and guides my decision-making.
Second, I invest in processes and frameworks as enablers. They are not just a structure. They help multiply impact through others and free up energy for the most ambiguous problems. As a technical leader, clarity is essential: knowing what to measure, what to automate, and where to embed guardrails so good practices are enforced by default. That way, even when I’m not directly present, quality and security are maintained.
Third, I operate with a security-first mindset, expecting the unexpected. Even with strong controls, threats evolve as technology changes, and the trickiest risks are often the hardest to detect. Proactive investment in monitoring, threat modeling, and defense in depth gives confidence that even the unknowns can be surfaced and addressed.
Finally, I rely on trust and distributed ownership. No one can carry responsibility of that magnitude alone. Building alignment, empowering others to own their domains, and fostering open conversations about risk make the responsibility not just manageable, but sustainable.
The pressure never completely disappears, but I don’t see it as a burden. I see it as a privilege: the chance to design systems resilient enough that people can depend on them every day without questioning their security.
Considering that security is a critical aspect but often invisible to end users — what personally inspires you in this line of work?
What inspires me most about working in security is that it is one of those disciplines where success is often invisible to end users while failure is immediately felt.
End users rarely notice the controls and guardrails that keep their data safe; but that is the point.
Security is about creating trust so people can live and work without worry, and for businesses that invisible layer becomes customer safety, trust, and an easier way to do business over time.
I’m deeply motivated by protecting people at scale: identities, payments, and privacy. It is not flashy, but it is meaningful.
I’m also inspired by the evolving challenge. The threat landscape never stands still, and technologies like AI, blockchain, and quantum computing bring both opportunity and risk.
Security demands constant learning and adaptation, which keeps the work engaging and impactful.
Last but not least: the privilege of scale keeps me going. That sense of responsibility and impact continues to inspire me in this field.
And finally, in your view, how will sensitive data protection evolve over the next five years?
It is already a universal expectation today, and customers, regulators, and businesses treat it as a given. The challenge is that while it is expected everywhere, it is not always executed consistently or deeply enough.
Over the next five years, I believe technology advances will make those gaps much more visible, especially for organizations and workflows that do not already operate at a higher bar.
Everyone will need to elevate their approach, because those that do not proactively address these gaps will be the ones most exposed to evolving threats.
Protection will also become more adaptive, automatically adjusting to context such as geography, data type, or risk level. Just as important, verifiability will become a central requirement.
Businesses will not just be expected to claim their data is secure; they will need to prove it continuously with clear evidence that customers, partners, and regulators can trust.
With quantum computing on the horizon, we will see wider adoption of post-quantum cryptography and layered defense strategies.
Data protection will not just remain a universal expectation; it will become a universal reality: adaptive, provable, and deeply woven into the fabric of digital systems.
Source link
