Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
11/07/2026 1:57 pm
TL;DR: Hybrid environments are now the steady state, yet cloud-native security stacks still miss on-prem Active Directory, legacy databases, air-gapped systems and other behind-the-firewall assets, according to JupiterOne. That makes visibility a governance problem, not just a tooling problem, because identity, compliance and risk controls fail where data is incomplete.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by JupiterOne: Bridge the Gap: How the JupiterOne Collector Brings On-Prem Visibility Into Your Security Graph
By the numbers:
- 87% of organizations today operate in a hybrid environment, and that number is trending toward 90% by 2027.
- Only 44% of organisations have implemented any policies to manage their AI agents, despite 92% agreeing that governing AI agents is critical to enterprise security.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams close visibility gaps in hybrid environments?
A: Security teams should make on-prem data part of the same control model as cloud data, otherwise access review and risk analysis remain incomplete.
Q: Why do hybrid environments complicate identity governance?
A: Hybrid environments complicate identity governance because identity relationships are split across cloud IAM, Active Directory, legacy applications and local infrastructure.
Q: What breaks when on-prem assets are missing from a security graph?
A: When on-prem assets are missing, the graph cannot reliably connect users, roles, devices and applications across the full environment.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory hybrid identity dependencies List every access path that still depends on Active Directory, legacy databases, physical devices or other on-prem systems.
- Validate graph completeness for privileged access Test whether cloud IAM roles can be linked to on-prem users, devices and applications in one workflow.
- Extend continuous controls monitoring to local assets Build one control set for hybrid estates and require on-prem assets to participate in the same evidence stream as cloud resources.
What's in the full article
JupiterOne's full blog covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Collector deployment steps for on-prem environments, including the container-based setup flow and runtime behaviour.
- Supported internal source types such as Active Directory, Device42 and self-hosted container registries, with guidance on where each fits.
- Metadata handling, proxy traversal and TLS options that matter when security teams are assessing trust boundaries.
- Examples of graph queries and compliance frameworks that can be built once on-prem data is in the platform.
👉 Read JupiterOne's blog on bringing on-prem visibility into the security graph →
Hybrid visibility gaps: what it means for IAM and security teams?
Explore further
11/07/2026 2:07 pm
Visibility gap: hybrid security is failing at the data layer. The article is not really about a collector, it is about the cost of incomplete telemetry in hybrid environments. When on-prem identity and infrastructure assets are missing from the same control plane as cloud resources, security teams lose the ability to reason about exposure, privilege and compliance in one place. That is a governance failure as much as a tooling one, and the practical conclusion is that visibility architecture now determines control quality.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable for hybrid visibility gaps?
A: Accountability usually sits with the teams that own identity governance, security architecture and control assurance, because the gap affects all three. If a platform cannot see a system, the organisation still remains responsible for that system's access and compliance posture.
👉 Read our full editorial: Hybrid visibility gaps are the real risk in security graphs
