Insider threats aren’t just a lingering risk; they’re a recurring failure. Despite billions poured into cybersecurity tools, frameworks, and programs, insider like access continues to bypass defenses and compromise sensitive systems. From IAM to SIEM, the industry’s most trusted safeguards are showing cracks. And the past few years have made that painfully clear.
Let’s break down what’s not working, and why insider threats remain one of the hardest problems in cybersecurity.
Identity and Access Management (IAM): Still Too Trusting
IAM is supposed to be the gatekeeper. But when insiders already have keys, gates don’t help much.
Take the case of Ubiquiti in 2021. A trusted employee abused privileged credentials to steal gigabytes of data and then tried to extort the company. The breach was initially blamed on a third party, but it turned out to be an insider with full access to AWS and GitHub repositories (source: DOJ indictment).
Even modern IAM setups struggle with lateral movement and privilege creep. Employees often retain access to systems long after their roles change. And when access reviews are manual or infrequent, it’s easy for toxic permissions to go unnoticed.
Privileged Access Management (PAM): Not Granular Enough
PAM tools are designed to restrict high level access. But they often fail to detect misuse when credentials are used “correctly.”
In 2022, a former Yahoo engineer used his privileged access to spy on user accounts, including personal emails and cloud storage. He wasn’t hacking. He was logging in through legitimate channels, undetected for years (source: DOJ press release).
This highlights a core flaw in PAM: it assumes that proper use of credentials equals safe behavior. But insiders don’t need to break rules. They just need to bend them quietly.
Behavioral Analytics: Too Noisy, Too Late
User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) promised to catch anomalies. But in practice, it often drowns in false positives or misses subtle patterns.
The SolarWinds breach in 2020 wasn’t an insider attack per se, but the attackers mimicked insider behavior so well that UEBA tools failed to flag them. They moved laterally, accessed build systems, and inserted malicious code all while looking like legitimate users (source: CISA analysis).
Behavioral tools struggle when attackers blend in. And when alerts are vague or overwhelming, security teams tune them out.
Zero Trust: Great Concept, Incomplete Execution
Zero Trust is the gold standard. But it’s rarely implemented in full.
Most organizations adopt piecemeal Zero Trust, maybe segmenting networks or enforcing MFA, but leave gaps in application level controls or device trust. That’s how attackers with insider like access still pivot across environments.
In 2023, a breach at 3CX (a VoIP provider) showed how compromised developer accounts could poison software updates. The attackers didn’t need to break perimeter defenses. They were already inside the CI/CD pipeline (source: Mandiant report).
Zero Trust only works when it’s end to end. Partial adoption leaves blind spots.
Data Loss Prevention (DLP): Easy to Evade
DLP tools are notorious for being bypassed. Employees can zip files, rename extensions, or use unsanctioned apps to move data.
In 2021, a Tesla employee was caught trying to exfiltrate trade secrets using personal devices and cloud accounts. DLP flagged some activity, but not all. The employee had already transferred sensitive files before detection (source: DOJ case).
DLP also struggles with encrypted traffic and insider intent. It can’t always tell the difference between a legitimate export and a malicious one.
SIEM and SOAR: Too Reactive
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) platforms are powerful, but reactive. They rely on logs and alerts, which means they often detect insider threats after damage is done.
In the case of Capital One’s 2019 breach, the attacker exploited a misconfigured firewall and accessed AWS metadata services. SIEM tools didn’t catch the anomaly until after the data was stolen (source: Capital One breach analysis).
SOAR platforms can automate response, but only if the threat is recognized. Insider threats often look like normal activity, making automation risky or ineffective.
Cloud Security: Misconfigurations and Shadow Access
Cloud environments are complex. And complexity breeds mistakes.
In 2022, Toyota exposed customer data due to a misconfigured GitHub repository. Credentials were accidentally published, allowing access to internal systems. No external attacker was needed, just a developer mistake (source: Toyota disclosure).
Cloud platforms also suffer from shadow access, where employees use personal accounts or unsanctioned tools. These aren’t always monitored, making insider risk invisible.
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR): Blind to Intent
EDR tools monitor devices for suspicious activity. But they’re not great at spotting insider misuse.
In 2023, a contractor at a healthcare firm used EDR approved tools to scrape patient data. The activity looked like routine analysis. It wasn’t flagged until a whistleblower reported it (source: HIPAA Journal).
EDR can detect malware and exploits. But when insiders use legitimate software for illegitimate purposes, it often goes unnoticed.
Insider Threat Programs: Underfunded and Undervalued
Many companies have insider threat programs on paper. Few have them in practice.
Programs often lack dedicated staff, clear escalation paths, or integration with HR and legal. And cultural resistance makes it hard to monitor employees without triggering privacy concerns.
In 2020, a former Google engineer stole proprietary AI code before joining a competitor. The insider threat program didn’t catch it, because it wasn’t looking for it (source: DOJ indictment).
Without proactive monitoring and cross functional support, insider threat programs become checkbox exercises.
Final Thoughts
Insider threats aren’t just technical problems. They’re human ones. And the tools we’ve built, while powerful, often assume that insiders will behave like outsiders. That’s a dangerous assumption.
To truly address insider risk, cybersecurity needs to evolve. Not just with better tech, but with better context, better integration, and better understanding of human behavior.
Until then, insider threats will keep slipping through the cracks.
Leave a Reply