Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
10/06/2026 9:19 pm
TL;DR: Zero trust, cloud-native delivery, and centralized policy are now baseline expectations for distributed access security, according to Zluri’s overview of the top 10 SASE solutions, but the article also reveals that tool selection still hinges on visibility, least privilege, and de-provisioning discipline. The governance issue is bigger than network architecture: SASE only works cleanly when identity, device, and access lifecycles are already under control.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: IT Teams Top 10 Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Solutions and Tools in 2026
By the numbers:
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them.
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams govern access when SASE is part of the control stack?
A: They should treat SASE as an enforcement layer, not a substitute for identity governance.
Q: Why do SASE deployments often expose IAM gaps?
A: Because SASE makes access decisions visible at the point of use, which quickly exposes weak role design, incomplete certification, and poor offboarding.
Q: What breaks when de-provisioning does not reach every connected app?
A: The identity lifecycle breaks at the exact point where access should end but does not.
Practitioner guidance
- Map SASE policy to identity sources of truth Verify that user, device, and app decisions are backed by authoritative identity and entitlement data before enforcing zero trust at the edge.
- Extend access review to SaaS and remote access paths Run certification against the full application surface, including apps reached outside the primary SSO path and any delegated or cloud-delivered access routes.
- Test de-provisioning beyond primary SSO Confirm that leaver workflows revoke access in connected apps, tokens, and direct grants, not just in the identity provider.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full article covers the product-by-product SASE comparison this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Per-vendor feature breakdowns for unified networking, ZTNA, SWG, CASB, and SD-WAN capabilities.
- Customer rating snippets and platform positioning details that help with shortlist comparison.
- Vendor-specific notes on deployment style, scalability, and management experience.
- A long list of named tools that implementation teams may need when moving from architecture to procurement.
👉 Read Zluri's SASE tools comparison for distributed access security teams →
SASE tools and access governance: what IAM teams need to know?
Explore further
12/06/2026 5:38 am
SASE is now an identity governance problem, not just a network architecture problem. The article’s own feature checklist shows why: zero trust, least privilege, visibility, and de-provisioning are all identity controls expressed through a network wrapper. That means SASE buying decisions increasingly depend on whether the organisation can govern who or what gets access in the first place. Practitioners should treat SASE as an access model with network enforcement, not as a standalone security category.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges in the same research set, which is why blast-radius reduction remains a governance priority.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should teams prioritise zero trust design or access cleanup first?
A: Access cleanup should come first if the organisation cannot confidently see and revoke existing entitlements. Zero trust is only as strong as the identities it governs, so broad roles, unknown apps, and incomplete offboarding will weaken the model before it is fully deployed.
👉 Read our full editorial: SASE tools expose the access governance gap in distributed IT
