Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/08/2026 6:10 pm
TL;DR: Many organisations think a SailPoint rollout is complete when connectors are live and certifications run, but SafePaaS argues that incomplete application coverage, manual evidence collection, and parallel business processes still leave compliance gaps. The real test is whether teams can prove access, policy, and approval history across the full application estate, not just the systems on platform.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by SafePaaS: SailPoint governance gaps and compliance blind spots after implementation
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should teams close SailPoint governance gaps without starting over?
A: Start by finding where the current governance model stops seeing access decisions.
Q: Why do access certifications still fail to satisfy auditors after deployment?
A: Because certification is only defensible when reviewers can see complete entitlement context, approval history, and remediation evidence.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about centralised identity platforms?
A: They often treat centralisation as the same thing as control.
Practitioner guidance
- Map governance blind spots across the application estate Identify which finance, legacy, acquired, regional, and niche SaaS systems still rely on local approval paths, spreadsheets, or ticketing instead of governed access workflows.
- Rebuild certification evidence around entitlement truth Make access review output traceable to entitlement source data, approval history, segregation-of-duties results, and remediation records in one audit trail.
- Eliminate parallel approval channels for high-risk systems Find the business teams that still govern access through email, spreadsheets, or side conversations and move those decisions into a defensible IAM workflow.
What's in the full article
SafePaaS's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- A five-sign warning model for spotting where SailPoint governance appears complete but still leaves coverage gaps.
- Examples of how spreadsheet reviews, screenshots, and manual exports keep audit evidence fragmented.
- A federated governance approach for extending control to business applications without replacing the existing SailPoint deployment.
- A case example showing privileged Oracle access and segregation-of-duties violations across multiple regions.
👉 Read SafePaaS's analysis of SailPoint governance gaps and compliance blind spots →
SailPoint governance gaps: what teams miss after implementation?
Explore further
25/08/2026 6:11 pm
Partial governance coverage is a structural control gap, not an implementation detail. A programme can be technically live while still missing the applications that create the highest audit and SoD risk. When critical systems remain outside the governed scope, the identity programme becomes a patchwork of central controls and local exceptions. That is why leadership confidence often exceeds actual control coverage. Practitioners should treat coverage gaps as a governance defect, not a connector backlog.
A few things that frame the scale:
- The average organisation believes more than 1 in 5 of their non-human identities are insufficiently secured, according to the 2024 ESG Report: Managing Non-Human Identities.
- 72% of organisations have experienced or suspect they have experienced a breach of non-human identities, with 46% confirming at least one incident.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do organisations know whether IT governance is actually working?
A: They should look for measurable evidence: current inventories, completed certifications, revocation records, and audit-ready changelogs. If governance outputs cannot be exported, reconciled, and tied back to specific identity decisions, the programme is more descriptive than operational. Working governance leaves an evidence trail, not just a committee meeting record.
👉 Read our full editorial: SailPoint governance gaps often persist after deployment
