Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
15/08/2026 6:06 pm
TL;DR: CASB and SSPM address different parts of SaaS security, according to Grip Security, but Shadow AI and OAuth-connected non-human identities now make application discovery alone insufficient. The practical shift is toward continuous control of identities, permissions, integrations, and posture, not just sanctioned versus unsanctioned apps.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Grip Security: SSPM vs CASB for Shadow SaaS and AI in 2026
By the numbers:
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
- The average Grip customer also uses 1,017 AI-enabled applications.
- 54% of enterprise applications contain detectable AI functionality.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams govern Shadow AI in SaaS applications?
A: Security teams should govern Shadow AI by classifying AI-capable SaaS tools, deciding what data each tool may process, and enforcing those decisions centrally.
Q: Why do CASB and SSPM both matter for modern SaaS security?
A: CASB and SSPM matter because they solve different parts of the same problem.
Q: What breaks when AI features are embedded inside approved SaaS and CI/CD systems?
A: Traditional gateway controls lose their edge because the traffic looks like normal application use.
Practitioner guidance
- Separate discovery from posture ownership Define which team owns CASB-style discovery and which owns SSPM-style posture review, then test whether the handoff actually closes the loop on remediation.
- Treat OAuth grants as governed identities Inventory connected apps, scopes, tokens, and renewal paths as identity objects with lifecycle states.
- Review embedded AI as a separate risk layer Classify AI functionality inside sanctioned SaaS separately from the host application and assess what data it can reach, what actions it can trigger, and which identities it inherits.
What's in the full article
Grip Security's full blog covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Side-by-side capability comparison guidance for CASB and SSPM across discovery, posture, OAuth visibility, and remediation
- Grip Security's 2026 Shadow AI exposure figures and how they change SaaS governance assumptions
- Evaluation criteria for deciding whether your current stack can track embedded AI, machine identities, and delegated permissions
- Practical questions for assessing continuous SaaS security control across sanctioned and unsanctioned applications
👉 Read Grip Security's analysis of SSPM vs CASB for Shadow SaaS and AI →
Shadow SaaS and AI: where CASB and SSPM leave the gap?
Explore further
15/08/2026 6:15 pm
Identity context is now the missing control plane for SaaS security. CASB can tell teams what is being used, and SSPM can tell them how well an app is configured, but neither is sufficient if the decisive risk lives in the identities and grants behind the application. Modern SaaS estates are populated by humans, service accounts, OAuth-connected apps, and AI agents, which means governance must follow the actor, not only the application. For identity teams, the practical conclusion is that SaaS security has become an identity lifecycle problem as much as a discovery problem.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when OAuth consent grants outlive authentication?
A: The accountable owners are the IAM, app governance, and security teams together, because OAuth consent is an authorization control, not a login control. If users can grant broad app access without review, the risk persists after password resets and MFA changes. Governance must cover who can consent, which scopes are allowed, and how tokens are revoked.
👉 Read our full editorial: Shadow SaaS and AI need identity-aware controls beyond CASB
