Shadow IT used to be easy to picture. Someone signed up for an unapproved SaaS tool, stored sensitive data in it, and security found out later. That pattern still exists, but it is no longer the main story.

The bigger shift is shadow automation. Employees are quietly building automation pipelines across tools the company already uses, plus whatever glue they can access. The result is not a new “app” to discover. It is a new set of data flows and actions that execute inside your environment with limited oversight.

This is why insider risk feels different right now. It is less about a single person doing something bad, and more about ordinary productivity behaviour creating persistent, privileged pathways that no one owns end-to-end.

The new shape of shadow work

Automation has become the default way modern work gets done. People connect forms to spreadsheets, tickets to chat, CRM fields to email sequences, and alerts to on-call rotations. They do it because it saves time and reduces manual errors.

The problem is that the easiest path is rarely the safest path. A “quick workflow” is often built with broad permissions, long-lived tokens, and vague ownership. It runs quietly in the background, sometimes for years, long after the original creator has moved on.

Shadow automation is the same impulse as shadow IT, but with more leverage. It touches multiple systems at once, moves data automatically, and can trigger actions without a human present.

Why automation becomes an insider risk even without malicious intent

Security teams are used to controlling people. Policies, training, approvals, and monitoring are built around human behaviour. Automation bypasses that assumption.

A person can only export so much data in a day. A workflow can export continuously. A person might hesitate before sending sensitive information to an external destination. A script will do exactly what it was told, every time, even if the context changes.

The risk compounds when automation is created by people who are not thinking like engineers. They are not wrong for that. It is simply not their job. But it means basics like least privilege, error handling, logging, and key rotation are often missing.

When something breaks, it usually breaks silently. When something is abused, it often looks like legitimate API activity.

Also Read: Trust by design: Why cybersecurity is the new economic backbone

Where shadow automation hides

Most organisations still look for shadow IT through app inventories and procurement controls. That approach misses the reality of automation because the components look “approved” in isolation.

A workflow tool might be sanctioned. A cloud storage platform might be sanctioned. An internal API might be sanctioned. The risky part is the chain and the permissions that connect it all.

You see shadow automation in personal scripts scheduled on laptops or jump boxes, ad-hoc serverless functions created for a project, webhooks that forward data to external endpoints, and AI agents connected to corporate systems to “help” with tasks.

The common pattern is that automation inherits trust. It uses valid tokens, valid accounts, and valid access routes. That is exactly what makes it hard to see and easy to underestimate.

The blind spot security keeps stepping into

Traditional insider risk programs tend to ask, “Who accessed what?” Shadow automation forces a more uncomfortable question: “What is acting on our behalf, and under whose authority?”

That second question exposes gaps in ownership and lifecycle. Who is responsible when the workflow runs at 2 a.m.? Who gets the alert when it fails and retries? Who reviews its permissions when systems change? Who revokes access when an employee leaves?

If there is no clear answer, you do not have an integration. You have an unmanaged privileged actor.

What “good” looks like without killing momentum

The goal is not to ban automation. If you try, you will create the worst possible outcome: the same automation, but quieter and harder to govern. The goal is to make safe automation easier than unsafe automation.

Start by treating automation as an asset class. That means you maintain an inventory of workflows, scripts, agents, and connectors that can access sensitive systems. You do not need perfection on day one. You need a place where ownership and intent are recorded and can be reviewed.

Next, focus on identity, because automation is identity at scale. Most automation risk is permission risk. Reduce broad scopes. Avoid long-lived keys where possible. Prefer managed identities and short-lived tokens. Make sure every non-human identity has an owner and a reason to exist.

Then address data movement explicitly. In many environments, data is not lost because storage was insecure; it is lost because it was copied into the wrong place as part of a “helpful” workflow. Decide which data types are allowed to flow into which destinations, and enforce it at the connector level where feasible.

Finally, bring change control to the places where it matters. Critical automations should have versioning, basic testing, and a kill switch. Even if the automation is “no-code,” it still needs a lifecycle. The more business-critical the flow, the closer it should look to a software discipline.

The practical first-quarter plan

If you want to reduce risk quickly, do three things in the next quarter.

First, identify your top automation surfaces. Pick the tools and platforms where automations are most likely to exist, and require owners to register anything that touches sensitive data or privileged systems.

Second, implement permission hygiene for automation identities. Review high-privilege tokens and connectors. Remove legacy access that no longer has a clear business justification. Put an expiration expectation on credentials that currently live forever.

Also Read: Cybersecurity: The evolution from digital safeguard to economic governance

Third, improve detection by looking for automation patterns rather than user patterns. Pay attention to unusual frequency, unusual destinations, and unusual chaining across systems. The signal is often not “a weird login,” but “a normal call happening at an abnormal rate.”

The cultural piece everyone avoids

Shadow automation is also a trust issue. Employees automate because they are trying to be effective, and often because official paths are slow or unclear. If security shows up only as a blocker, people will route around it.

A mature approach treats automation builders as partners. Give them safe defaults, clear guardrails, and lightweight ways to get approval for higher-risk workflows. Create a path where someone can say, “I built this,” without fearing punishment.

That is how visibility improves. And visibility is the prerequisite for control.

Closing

Shadow IT was about tools. Shadow automation is about power. It turns everyday access into repeatable execution across systems, often with more privilege and less oversight than anyone intended.

If you want to modernise insider risk, stop focusing only on what employees install. Start focusing on what runs on their behalf. The organisations that do this well will not slow down innovation. They will make automation safer, more observable, and easier to trust.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of e27.

Join us on Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn to stay connected.

The post Shadow automation: The new insider risk appeared first on e27.