Topic starter
24/06/2026 6:58 pm
TL;DR: Shadow IT keeps expanding the access perimeter faster than identity governance can reliably inventory, certify, and revoke it, according to Netwrix's on-demand webinar. The practical issue is not visibility alone, but whether IAM, IGA, and privileged access controls can keep pace with unmanaged access before it becomes persistent risk.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Netwrix: “IGA vs Shadow IT : Comment reprendre le contrôle de vos accès en 2025?”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when shadow IT sits outside identity governance controls?
A: Access reviews, offboarding, and privileged approval workflows lose reliability when shadow IT is outside the system of record.
Q: Why does shadow IT increase risk even when access reviews are happening?
A: Access reviews only reduce risk when every relevant entitlement enters the review set.
Practitioner guidance
- Map shadow applications into the authoritative inventory Identify every business application, local tool, and informal access path that currently sits outside your governed application catalogue.
- Expand access reviews to include unmanaged entitlements Adjust certification scope so that unregistered systems, shared accounts, and locally created roles are visible to review owners.
- Close offboarding gaps in shadow platforms When users leave or move, verify that informal accounts, SaaS permissions, and locally administered access are removed, not just the centrally managed identity.
Bottom line: Shadow IT becomes an access-governance problem as soon as users create permissions outside the managed inventory.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 3 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
25/06/2026 4:02 am
Shadow IT is an identity governance problem before it is a technology problem. The security failure begins when access exists outside the governed application and entitlement inventory, because IGA cannot certify or revoke what it cannot reliably enumerate. That makes discovery and ownership assignment foundational to the control model, not a back-office task. Practitioners should treat shadow systems as governance exceptions with security impact, not as isolated business convenience.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Nearly 60% of IT leaders cite restrictive cost and complexity as a weakness of legacy identity governance, according to the 2025 State of Identity Governance Report.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should IAM teams handle privileged access in shadow environments?
A: They should treat any privileged path in an unmanaged system as a governance exception until it is inventoried, owned, and reviewable. PAM controls lose effectiveness when local admins, ad hoc roles, or unmanaged SaaS privileges sit outside the review loop. The practical question is whether you can name the owner and revoke the access cleanly.
👉 Read our full editorial: Shadow IT and IGA control gaps are widening access risk in 2025
This post was modified 3 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group