From Framework to Function: Applying Compliance Standards to SaaS Security

Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) is the backbone of most cybersecurity programs, ensuring organizations meet regulatory requirements, manage risks, and enforce security policies. Yet, GRC has not kept pace with the realities of SaaS security.  

SaaS adoption and usage has shifted dramatically, but compliance frameworks remain largely unchanged, designed for traditional IT environments rather than today’s decentralized, business-led SaaS. Without clear visibility into the SaaS ecosystem, determining whether cloud-based tools align with regulatory frameworks or if they expose the organization to risk is murky at best. Most regulatory requirements focus on the governance of known systems and applications, but modern SaaS procurement happens outside traditional IT oversight. To keep pace, GRC teams must refine their compliance strategies to address the realities of how SaaS is adopted and used today.

The Challenge of Enforcing Security Standards

Unlike traditional IT environments, today’s SaaS adoption is largely driven by employees and business units, often without IT or security oversight. In pursuit of efficiency, teams onboard cloud-based tools without fully considering compliance or security implications. This unmanaged adoption—known as shadow SaaS—creates significant blind spots for GRC teams, not only in knowing which apps are in use but also in understanding how they are accessed and whether they comply with security policies and regulatory frameworks. Addressing this challenge starts with establishing a clear technology policy that defines acceptable SaaS usage. However, policy alone is not enough—organizations must also have visibility into whether it is being followed and implement corrective measures when deviations occur.

Achieving and maintaining compliance in a business-led IT environment is a continuous challenge, especially when applications bypass traditional security and procurement reviews, which can leave organizations vulnerable to compliance gaps and security risks. For example, many security controls require multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all applications accessing sensitive data. Since shadow SaaS is adopted outside of IT oversight, it often lacks MFA enforcement and may rely on weak credentials. Further, what happens when that shadow app is granted permissions to a sanctioned app that touches sensitive data? Or when a necessary but non-compliant SaaS app doesn’t support MFA—do you allow it, block it, or find a compensating control?

Some may argue that data loss prevention (DLP) solutions mitigate the risks of shadow SaaS by preventing sensitive data from being uploaded. However, DLP solutions often generate a high volume of false positives and alerts, making enforcement difficult at scale. A more effective approach is to control access to SaaS applications directly, ensuring security teams know which apps are in use, who is using them, and what data they can access. Flagging new applications, confirming user intent, and governing access ensures that security measures are proactive rather than reactive. This collaborative approach—one that involves and enables business partners—proves far more productive than relying solely on restrictive controls that may disrupt workflows.

GRC teams frequently balance business needs with security best practices. Because shadow apps are unknown to the team, their compliance status—whether they align with GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, or other frameworks—also remains uncertain. Access controls may also be misconfigured or entirely absent. Too often, security teams only discover these risks after an incident occurs. Without a comprehensive SaaS discovery process, organizations operate on assumption rather than assurance, believing they are compliant when they may not be.

Framework Requirements: MFA, SSO, and More

For organizations striving to meet regulatory obligations, the table below outlines common security frameworks and whether they require key security controls like MFA and Single Sign-On (SSO) for SaaS.

‍

While compliance standards account for some aspects of SaaS, they must evolve to reflect how organizations adopt and use it today. Just as compliance isn’t static, neither is SaaS adoption. Security and GRC teams must collaborate to uncover and assess shadow SaaS, enforce policies effectively, and ensure compliance remains a proactive safeguard for sensitive data—not just a checkbox exercise.

The Future of SaaS Security and Compliance

SaaS adoption is increasing by 40% each year, making business-led IT the new standard. Yet, GRC frameworks have struggled to keep up. If the goal of compliance standards is to safeguard sensitive data, then shadow SaaS must be accounted for in compliance strategies. IT, GRC, and security teams need real-time visibility into the applications employees are using and how they are accessing them, ensuring that compliance goes beyond regulatory requirements to truly protect organizational data.

Grip helps organizations bridge this gap by transforming compliance from a static requirement into an active security function—offering continuous visibility, automated enforcement, and adaptive risk management. By shifting from framework to function, organizations can stop playing catch-up and start embedding security into every aspect of SaaS usage. GRC shouldn’t be just about maintaining compliance—it’s about making data security an integrated, dynamic part of business success.

To learn more about how Grip can strengthen your SaaS security, book time with our team.

‍