Topic starter
24/12/2025 9:41 am
TL;DR: API-related security incidents are widespread, with 92% of organizations using APIs suffering a breach in the last 12 months and API-related vulnerabilities costing up to $87 billion annually, according to Raidiam’s analysis. Bearer-token trust, weak visibility, and poor third-party controls turn API security into an identity and access governance problem, not just an application issue.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Raidiam: “Why API Security Vulnerabilities Should Keep You Up at Night”.
By the numbers:
- 84% of security professionals experienced an API security incident in the past year.
- 92% of organisations using APIs suffered a breach within the last 12 months.
- API-related vulnerabilities are now costing organisations up to $87 billion annually.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when API security relies on bearer tokens alone?
A: Bearer-only API security breaks when a token can be intercepted and replayed by anyone who possesses it.
Q: Why do third-party API calls create identity governance risk?
A: Because they move sensitive data and delegated authority outside the control points that IAM teams usually monitor.
Q: How can teams tell whether API governance is actually working?
A: A working programme can answer four questions quickly: who owns the consumer, what it can access, where the policy is enforced, and how the call is logged.
Practitioner guidance
- Define API ownership and revocation paths Assign each API an accountable owner, an authoritative inventory record, and a clear process for disabling access when the API or partner relationship changes.
- Replace bearer trust in high-risk flows Where tokens protect sensitive transactions, use sender-constrained or certificate-bound controls so token possession alone is not enough to gain access.
- Inventory third-party API access Document every external integration, the data it can reach, and the identity or credential type it uses so partner access can be reviewed and removed on schedule.
Bottom line: API vulnerabilities are increasingly governed as identity failures because access, token trust, and partner connections determine the real risk surface.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 10 months ago by Abdelrahman
This topic was modified 2 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
11/10/2026 4:24 am
API security is now an identity governance problem, not just an application control problem. The article is right to shift the frame from endpoint protection to access governance because bearer tokens, partner integrations, and incomplete inventories all determine who can act through an API. That means the real control plane is the identity relationship behind the call, not the request itself. Practitioners should treat API access as governed identity activity across issuance, scope, and revocation.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 71% of organizations use third-party APIs, according to Gartner’s 2024 data.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between API discovery and API governance?
A: API discovery finds what exists, while API governance decides who may use it, how it may be accessed, and when that access must be removed. Discovery is the visibility layer; governance is the control layer. Organisations need both, because you cannot enforce policy on interfaces you have not found.
👉 Read our full editorial: API security vulnerabilities are becoming an identity governance problem