Notifications
Clear all
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.
NHIMG editorial — here’s why we think this discussion matters
Questions worth separating out
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 access risk for IAM and IGA programmes?
A: Shadow IT increases access risk because it creates entitlements that are not enrolled in joiner-mover-leaver processes, so ownership and revocation become unclear.
Practitioner guidance
- Map unsanctioned access paths first Inventory SaaS apps, local admin grants, shared credentials, direct database permissions, and third-party integrations that sit outside normal onboarding and approval workflows.
- Reconcile identity records against actual access Compare the directory, IGA catalog, and PAM inventory with observed permissions in cloud, endpoint, and application environments.
- Route privileged exceptions through controlled approval Eliminate permanent one-off admin grants by forcing time-bound approval, session oversight, and explicit ownership for every privileged exception.
What to expect at the briefing
Netwrix's full on-demand webinar covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Speaker-led walkthrough of how the IGA vs Shadow IT problem plays out in real access environments
- Practical examples of unmanaged access patterns that sit outside standard identity workflows
- Discussion of how to regain control over access without relying on certification alone
- Netwrix's framing of the risk areas highlighted in the webinar recording
👉 Watch Netwrix's on-demand webinar on IGA vs Shadow IT and access control →
Shadow IT and IGA control gaps: what IAM teams need now?
Explore further
25/06/2026 4:02 am
Shadow IT is an identity governance problem before it is an IT sprawl problem. When access is created outside approved workflows, the programme loses the inventory needed for certification, offboarding, and privilege cleanup. That means the control failure starts in governance, not detection, and practitioners should treat unmanaged access as a lifecycle breach of policy rather than a tooling inconvenience.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 85% of organisations lack full visibility into third-party vendors connected via OAuth apps, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- Only 1.5 out of 10 organisations are highly confident in their ability to secure NHIs, which shows how quickly unmanaged access can outrun governance maturity.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when access exists outside approved governance?
A: Accountability sits with the control owners responsible for identity inventory, access review, and deprovisioning. If shadow access remains after a role change, contractor exit, or application approval failure, the gap is usually shared across IAM, application owners, and security operations. The practical test is whether every entitlement has a named owner and a revocation path.
👉 Read our full editorial: Shadow IT and IGA control gaps are widening access risk in 2025
