Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
15/08/2026 6:07 pm
TL;DR: Public SaaS attacks rose 490% year over year, the average enterprise now operates 3,891 SaaS and AI-connected environments, and more than 23,000 SaaS applications sit outside centralized IT visibility, according to Grip Security’s 2026 SaaS + AI Security Report. The practical shift is that SSPM alone is no longer enough; identity relationships, OAuth grants, AI-enabled apps, and automation now define the real attack surface.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Grip Security: Best SSPM and SaaS Security Platforms for DevSecOps Teams (2026)
By the numbers:
- Public SaaS attacks increased 490% year over year.
- The average enterprise now operates 3,891 SaaS and AI-connected environments.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams implement identity governance in SaaS-heavy environments?
A: Start with a complete inventory of users, service accounts, integrations, and privileged entitlements across all major applications.
Q: Why do SaaS security tools create identity risk for enterprises?
A: SaaS security tools often sit close to sensitive tokens, workflows, and investigation data, which makes their own admin paths and integrations part of the trust boundary.
Q: What breaks when organisations rely on SSPM without identity governance?
A: They can detect misconfigurations but still leave excessive access in place.
Practitioner guidance
- Map SaaS trust relationships, not just applications. Build an inventory that ties each SaaS app to OAuth grants, service accounts, integrations, and AI-enabled functions so governance can follow the access path.
- Extend lifecycle controls to non-human SaaS identities. Review service accounts, automation accounts, and bots on the same cadence used for privileged human access, with explicit ownership and revocation triggers.
- Set revocation rules for high-risk OAuth scopes. Define which permission scopes trigger immediate review or removal, especially when third-party apps can read mail, files, or workflow data.
What's in the full article
Grip Security's full webinar covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Evaluation criteria for SSPM and SaaS security platforms across visibility, governance, automation, and AI risk.
- Capability comparisons for identity visibility, OAuth governance, and automated remediation across platform types.
- Practical questions for DevSecOps teams assessing SaaS discovery, unmanaged applications, and connected identity paths.
- The webinar framing for when SSPM becomes a broader SaaS Security Control Plane model.
👉 Read Grip Security’s webinar on SaaS security platforms for DevSecOps teams →
SaaS identity visibility and AI governance: are your controls keeping up?
Explore further
15/08/2026 6:16 pm
SSPM is becoming an identity control plane problem, not a configuration problem. SaaS misconfiguration remains relevant, but it is no longer the dominant failure mode in interconnected enterprise estates. Access now flows through OAuth grants, service accounts, browser extensions, and AI-connected integrations, which means the control surface is the trust relationship, not just the tenant setting. Security leaders should treat SaaS discovery and identity governance as one discipline.
A few things that frame the scale:
- The average estimated time to remediate a leaked secret is 27 days, despite 75% of organisations expressing strong confidence in their secrets management capabilities, according to The State of Secrets in AppSec.
- Only 44% of developers are reported to follow security best practices for secrets management, showing that governance gaps persist at the implementation layer.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do security teams know if SaaS identity controls are actually working?
A: Look for evidence that lower-assurance identities are fully segregated from sensitive backend paths, not just authenticated differently. A control is working when a breach at one trust tier cannot reach another tenant's data, administrative functions, or session context. If lateral reach remains possible, the control is cosmetic.
👉 Read our full editorial: SaaS security is shifting from posture to identity control
