Yes, because both create access that can become stale. Marketplace apps may not be human users, but they still hold permissions, dependencies and business accountability. The review should focus on scope, owner, data exposure and whether the integration is still required, not just on whether it was successfully installed.
How marketplace apps compare to user access in a review
Marketplace apps should be reviewed with the same discipline as user access because they are another path to organizational permissions. The practical difference is that the “account” may be an OAuth app, connected integration or service token rather than a person. That means review criteria should focus on who owns it, what it can reach, how broadly it can act and whether it still has a valid business need.
That is why access review thinking applies cleanly here, especially when the app can touch sensitive data or act inside core systems. A stale integration can be as risky as a dormant user account if nobody is watching its scope, expiry or downstream dependencies. The review question is not “did it install successfully?” but “does it still deserve this level of access?”
For a practical baseline on how to structure that thinking, IAM and IGA Basics is the right starting point because it frames access review, entitlement governance and ownership as one control loop.
What to review on the app, not just on the installation
The most important review dimensions are scope, ownership, data exposure and business need. Scope tells you which APIs, tenants, files or workflows the app can reach. Ownership tells you who is accountable when the app misbehaves or is no longer needed. Data exposure tells you whether the integration can read, write, delete or export information that would matter if abused. Business need tells you whether the connection is still justified or simply lingering.
Marketplace apps also deserve attention because their permissions can be broader than the visible user experience suggests. A small-looking productivity add-on may have access to mailboxes, calendars, drives, chats or admin-level APIs. If the owner cannot explain that access in plain language, or if the app has not been used recently, the review should treat that as a signal to narrow, suspend or remove it.
When the integration is an OAuth app or SaaS-to-SaaS connection, SaaS-to-SaaS and OAuth App Governance Guide is a natural companion because it addresses consent, scopes, token risk and revocation.
Why stale marketplace apps become a governance problem
Marketplace apps often outlive the team that installed them, which creates the same lifecycle failure pattern seen with dormant accounts and old entitlements. The app may keep its token, its broad consent or its API connection even after the original use case has disappeared. Over time, that turns a convenience integration into unowned access.
This matters because stale integrations create hidden dependencies. They can bypass normal change control, keep reading data after staff change roles, and remain active even when the business process they supported has been replaced. In other words, the technical installation can be stable while the governance state has gone stale.
If you need a lifecycle lens for that problem, NHI Lifecycle Management Guide is useful because it treats provisioning, rotation, offboarding and visibility as one management cycle.
Risk and Threat Considerations
Marketplace apps concentrate access in a way that can be easy to forget and hard to notice. A forgotten integration can continue to expose data, preserve broad consent or provide a reusable foothold long after the original business need has ended. That makes stale app reviews a control issue, not just an administrative task.
Failure mechanism: The integration keeps its permissions, tokens or dependencies even after ownership is lost, so the organisation no longer has a reliable reason to trust the access that remains in place.
Impact: Excess access, data exposure and unintended automation can persist silently, and a compromised or abandoned app can become a durable path into core systems.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
OWASP API Security Top 10 addresses the attack surface, NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and CIS Controls v8 set the technical controls, and ISO/IEC 27001:2022 defines the regulatory obligations.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | AC-2 — Account Management | Marketplace app permissions need periodic review and removal when no longer required. |
| IA-5 — Authenticator Management | OAuth grants, tokens and app secrets are identity-bearing material that must be managed across the app lifecycle. | |
| Recommendation — Review app entitlements on a schedule and remove access that no longer has a business need. Rotate, revoke and track app credentials and tokens throughout their lifecycle. | ||
| CIS Controls v8 | CIS-5 — Account Management | Marketplace apps are access-bearing accounts that should be inventoried, owned and reviewed like other accounts. |
| Recommendation — Inventory connected apps and disable integrations that lack current ownership or need. | ||
| OWASP API Security Top 10 | API5 — Broken Function Level Authorization | Marketplace integrations often invoke privileged functions through APIs and can overreach if scope is not reviewed. |
| Recommendation — Validate that app scopes cannot invoke functions beyond the approved business purpose. | ||
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | A.5.15 — Access control | App review is fundamentally an access control decision over non-human access paths. |
| Recommendation — Apply access control rules to third-party apps using the same approval and review discipline as users. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
What to prioritise: Review high-scope apps first, especially those with write access, admin consent, long-lived tokens or access to sensitive business systems. Ownership and business justification matter more than the app’s installation date.
What to verify: Require a named business owner, a current purpose statement and a clear description of the app’s scopes and dependencies. If nobody can explain why the access still exists, treat that as a removal candidate rather than a low-priority exception.
Practitioner takeaway: Marketplace apps should be governed as living access relationships, not static software entries, because the real control question is whether the app still deserves the permissions it holds.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- When should organizations review access controls?
- What should organisations do after a user access review finds exceptions?
- Should organisations start NHI governance in the same way for production, development, and vendor access?
- Should organisations apply the same access review process to human and non-human identities?
Deepen Your Knowledge
Free weekly newsletter
Subscribe to the NHI & AI Identity Journal
The latest on NHI and Agentic AI security – articles, research, breaches, news and events every week.
Bonus 33% off our NHI Course when you subscribe.
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on October 8, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org