Dive into the complex world of SaaS security with Malik Haidar, a seasoned cybersecurity expert who has spent years safeguarding multinational corporations from sophisticated threats and hackers. With a deep background in analytics, intelligence, and security, Malik brings a unique perspective by blending business needs with cutting-edge defense strategies. In this interview, we explore the pitfalls of implicit trust in SaaS environments, the hidden risks of integrations and tokens, the challenges of implementing Zero Trust principles, and the critical need for continuous verification to stay ahead of evolving threats.
How do you interpret the concept of “trust but verify” in the realm of cybersecurity, especially with SaaS platforms?
“Trust but verify” is a fundamental idea in cybersecurity—it means you can grant access or permissions, but you must always follow up with checks to ensure that trust isn’t being abused. In the context of SaaS platforms, this principle often falls apart. Organizations tend to trust users, apps, or integrations once they’re authenticated, but they rarely revisit or scrutinize that trust over time. This creates a dangerous gap where outdated tokens or over-privileged apps can become entry points for attackers, and no one’s watching closely enough to notice.
Why do you think so many organizations fail to prioritize the “verify” aspect when managing SaaS environments?
A big reason is the sheer complexity and scale of SaaS ecosystems. Companies often have dozens, if not hundreds, of cloud apps integrated into their workflows, each with its own set of permissions and tokens. Keeping track of all that manually is overwhelming, and many lack the tools or resources for ongoing monitoring. Plus, there’s a cultural issue—once an app or user is approved, there’s a false sense of security that everything is fine. Verification feels like extra work when, in reality, it’s the core of staying safe.
Can you break down what “implicit trust” means in SaaS systems and why it poses such a significant risk?
Implicit trust in SaaS means that once access is granted—say, through a user clicking “Allow” on an app or an API token being issued—that access is assumed to be legitimate indefinitely. There’s no regular re-evaluation. This is risky because it ignores how threats evolve. A token issued to a third-party app today might be compromised tomorrow, or an app might not even be needed anymore but still retains access. Without active oversight, you’re essentially leaving the door unlocked and hoping no one notices.
What are some of the security challenges posed by SaaS integrations and API tokens in today’s corporate environments?
SaaS integrations and API tokens are incredibly useful for connecting systems and automating tasks, but they’re also a massive blind spot. Each integration is a potential entry point—if a token is stolen or misused, attackers can access sensitive data without needing to hack a password or bypass user authentication. The challenge is that these tokens often aren’t monitored or managed with the same rigor as user accounts. They’re created, used, and forgotten, which makes them low-hanging fruit for cybercriminals looking to exploit persistent access.
Why do you think OAuth tokens frequently remain unmonitored or never expire in many SaaS setups?
It often comes down to convenience over security. Setting expiration dates or regularly rotating OAuth tokens requires planning and effort, and many organizations prioritize getting systems up and running over tightening controls. There’s also a lack of awareness—teams might not realize that a token issued for a one-off project last year is still active. Without automated systems to track or enforce token lifecycles, they just linger indefinitely, creating a ticking time bomb for security.
Can you share a real-world example of a breach caused by unmonitored tokens and the key takeaways from it?
One notable incident involved a major collaboration platform a couple of years back where employee tokens were stolen and used to access internal code repositories. The attackers didn’t need to crack passwords or bypass login screens; they just used the valid tokens to walk right in. The lesson here is clear: tokens are as powerful as any credential, yet they often lack the same level of protection or monitoring. Organizations need to treat tokens with the same urgency as passwords—regular rotation, strict access limits, and constant vigilance are non-negotiable.
Why do third-party apps often end up with more permissions than they need, and how does this amplify security risks?
Third-party apps often request broad permissions because it’s easier for developers to ask for everything upfront rather than fine-tune access to the bare minimum. Users, on the other hand, are usually in a rush and just click “Allow” without reading the fine print. This over-privileging means an app that only needs to read calendar data might also have the ability to edit or delete it—or worse, access unrelated systems. If that app is compromised, attackers inherit those excessive rights, turning a small vulnerability into a catastrophic breach.
How do automation bots and scripts fit into SaaS environments, and what risks do they introduce?
Automation bots and scripts are widely used in SaaS to streamline repetitive tasks—like pulling data, generating reports, or syncing systems. They often operate with API keys or tokens that carry significant privileges. The risk comes when these automations are set up and then left to run in the background with little to no oversight. If a token is compromised or a script is misconfigured, it could be used to exfiltrate data or disrupt operations, and no one might notice until it’s too late.
Why is there often so little oversight on automation processes once they’re implemented?
Oversight tends to drop off because automation is seen as a “set it and forget it” solution. Once a process is working, there’s an assumption it will keep working securely. Many teams don’t have the bandwidth to regularly audit these scripts or the tokens they use. There’s also a gap in tooling—traditional security systems are built to monitor human activity, not machine-to-machine interactions, so these processes often fly under the radar until something goes wrong.
How can organizations better manage the privileges and actions of automation tools to reduce vulnerabilities?
First, organizations need to apply the principle of least privilege to automation tools—just like with users, grant only the access needed for the task. Second, implement regular audits to review which automations are running and what permissions they have. Third, use monitoring solutions that can flag unusual behavior, like an automation tool accessing data it shouldn’t. Finally, enforce token rotation and expiration policies for machine credentials. It’s about building a culture of continuous checks, not just a one-time setup.
Can you explain the Zero Trust philosophy and how it contrasts with the current trust model in many SaaS platforms?
Zero Trust is all about “never trust, always verify.” It assumes that no user, app, or device—inside or outside your network—should be trusted by default, and every action must be validated continuously. In contrast, many SaaS platforms operate on a model of “trust once, verify never.” Once an app or token is approved, it’s often given free rein with no further checks. Zero Trust flips this on its head by demanding ongoing verification, ensuring that trust is earned and re-earned with every interaction.
Why do you see a disconnect between the discussion of Zero Trust and its actual implementation in SaaS security?
The disconnect comes from a mix of mindset and practical challenges. Zero Trust sounds great in theory, but implementing it requires a complete overhaul of how access and trust are managed, which can be daunting. Many SaaS platforms weren’t built with continuous verification in mind, so retrofitting Zero Trust principles is tough. Plus, there’s resistance to change—teams are used to one-time approvals and worry that constant checks will slow down workflows. It’s a cultural and technical hurdle that takes time and commitment to overcome.
How does the idea of “never trust, always verify” specifically apply to SaaS integrations, and why isn’t it more common?
In SaaS integrations, “never trust, always verify” means that every time an integrated app or token tries to access data or perform an action, its legitimacy and intent should be checked. This could involve re-authenticating tokens periodically or monitoring their behavior for anomalies. It’s not common because most SaaS systems are designed for ease of use, not security. Continuous verification requires additional infrastructure and can introduce friction, so it’s often deprioritized in favor of seamless connectivity—until a breach forces a rethink.
What does “continuous verification” mean for SaaS security, and why is it so critical today?
Continuous verification means constantly assessing whether access—whether by a user, app, or token—is still justified based on behavior and context, not just a one-time approval. It’s critical because threats don’t stand still. A token that’s safe today might be compromised tomorrow, or an app’s usage might change in unexpected ways. By verifying access in real time, you catch issues before they spiral into full-blown breaches. It’s the difference between locking the door once and checking it every hour.
Can you give a simple example to illustrate the difference between “granted privilege” and “observed privilege”?
Sure. Granted privilege is what you initially allow—let’s say you give an API key permission to read customer data in a CRM system. Observed privilege is how that key is actually used over time, like only reading 10 records a day from a specific location during business hours. If that key suddenly tries to download the entire database at midnight from a different country, the observed behavior doesn’t match the expected pattern, and that’s a red flag. Continuous monitoring of observed privilege helps spot these discrepancies.
How can monitoring behavior help identify potential security issues with tokens or apps in SaaS environments?
Monitoring behavior lets you establish a baseline of what’s normal for a token or app—like when it accesses data, what kind of data it touches, and from where. When something deviates from that baseline, it’s a sign of trouble. For instance, if an app that usually updates reports starts accessing financial records it’s never touched before, that could indicate misuse or compromise. Behavioral monitoring acts as an early warning system, catching issues that static credential checks might miss.
What are some specific behaviors that might indicate a token or app is being misused, and how should organizations respond?
Unusual behaviors could include a token accessing data at odd hours, pulling far more records than usual, or connecting from an unfamiliar IP address or location. It might also look like an app suddenly exercising permissions it rarely uses, like deleting files when it typically only reads them. Organizations should respond by immediately investigating the anomaly—suspend the token or app if needed, analyze the activity logs, and determine if it’s a legitimate change or a sign of compromise. Speed is key to limiting damage.
What is your forecast for the future of SaaS security as threats continue to evolve?
I think SaaS security will have to shift dramatically toward automation and real-time monitoring to keep pace with evolving threats. Attackers are getting smarter, targeting tokens and integrations with precision, so static defenses won’t cut it. We’ll see more adoption of Zero Trust principles, but it’ll be driven by necessity—more breaches will force companies to prioritize continuous verification. I also expect AI and machine learning to play a bigger role in spotting behavioral anomalies, helping security teams stay ahead of risks in increasingly complex SaaS ecosystems. The future is about proactive, adaptive security, not reactive fixes.
