Topic starter
07/03/2026 9:21 pm
TL;DR: SaaS security posture management helps with configuration drift, but it does not fully govern identities, access paths, and shadow SaaS across sprawling app estates, according to Grip Security. The control gap is now identity-first: discovery, ownership, and offboarding matter more than posture checks alone.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Grip Security: “Strengthening SaaS Security Posture Management by Tackling Identity Risks Head-on”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when identity governance is not aligned with modern access control in SaaS environments?
A: When governance lags behind access control, organisations lose visibility into who has access, why it was granted, and whether it is still needed.
Q: What do teams get wrong about SSPM when trying to secure SaaS applications?
A: Teams often treat SSPM as a complete fix, but it mainly addresses configuration risk and compliance drift.
Practitioner guidance
- Map the SaaS identity perimeter Inventory sanctioned and unsanctioned SaaS applications, the user accounts tied to each, and any service or shared credentials that extend access beyond central IAM visibility.
- Separate posture findings from access governance Use SSPM outputs to identify misconfigurations, then independently verify who owns each identity, whether the account is sanctioned, and whether access still aligns to business need.
- Extend offboarding into the SaaS layer Tie leaver and contractor exit processes to SaaS account discovery so dormant, shared, and abandoned access paths are removed when employment or vendor relationships end.
Bottom line: SaaS identity risk is broader than application posture because hidden accounts and access paths can persist even when configuration looks acceptable.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
08/10/2026 5:30 pm
SSPM is a control subset, not an identity governance model: Configuration checks matter, but they do not answer who owns SaaS access, who approved it, or whether it still belongs in the environment. That is why posture-only programmes often overestimate their coverage. The implication is that SaaS security has to be governed as an identity problem first, and a configuration problem second.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 1 in 3 organisations encountered suspicious AI agent activity in 2025, and 99.4% experienced a SaaS or AI ecosystem incident.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between SSPM and SaaS identity risk management?
A: SSPM focuses on application posture, such as configuration and permission drift. SaaS identity risk management focuses on the identities and access paths that use those applications, including hidden accounts, shared credentials, and abandoned access. One checks the app, the other governs the access relationship.
👉 Read our full editorial: SaaS identity risk management exposes gaps SSPM alone misses