Posture tells you how your SaaS is configured. Mitiga tells you what happened inside it: normalized activity across ~100 platforms, retained 1,000+ days — so the answer exists before a regulator asks.
Posture management assumes whoever finds the problem can fix it. In SaaS they can’t: the permissive Salesforce profile belongs to RevOps, the sharing default to Legal, the OAuth grant to whoever installed the app. A finding isn’t an action, it’s a request to a business owner, and many are declined for good reason.
Every declined finding becomes accepted risk. Its only compensating control is something that can watch the activity in runtime.
Clear the entire posture backlog and the dominant SaaS attack pattern of the last two years is untouched, because it runs on valid access. Attackers don’t break in; they log in.
Compromised OAuth tokens for a sanctioned integration reached Salesforce data at 700+ orgs, with ordinary user-agents, and nine days undetected.
Same pattern, a quarter later — 200+ companies, a FINRA advisory issued.
~165 orgs breached with valid credentials from infostealers. No vulnerability, no misconfiguration.
Forged tokens against Microsoft 365. Most victims couldn’t scope it — the telling logs sat behind a premium license tier.
Configuration was correct throughout. The attack lived only in the activity record — and that’s where the losses came from.
Mitiga is Agentic Runtime Security for cloud, SaaS, identity, and AI — four things working together for compliance.
Agentless collection across ~100 platforms, normalized and retained 1,000+ days, far past native windows of 90 days (Okta) or ~180 days (Google Workspace/Purview). Held outside the source, exportable for legal hold, regulators, or insurers.
Credential abuse, MFA/conditional-access bypass, privilege escalation, lateral movement, configuration drift, OAuth grants, non-human identity activity, data exfiltration, AI/agent activity, and continuous threat hunting.
One cross-platform attack timeline, scope and impact, documented root cause, retrospective hunting against 1,000+ days of history in hours, and regulator- and board-ready reporting.
Rules written in runtime verbs — event logging (EU AI Act Art. 12), post-market monitoring (Art. 72), detection of prompt injection and poisoning (Art. 15(5)) — including agents acting with delegated credentials.
For AI there's no posture-first option: the behavior the rules ask about doesn't exist until the system runs.
Days instead of months is the line between zero-impact and a breach.
Automatic recording of AI and agent activity — inputs/outputs, tool and API calls, model changes — retained beyond the six-month statutory minimum.
Prompt injection, data and model poisoning, adversarial/evasion inputs, model tampering, and extraction attacks — expressed as behavior, not configuration.
How a system and its agents actually behave in production over time, so drift is visible as a trend, not discovered at the next assessment.
What an agent reached, on whose authority, and whether that pattern is normal — the fastest-growing privileged actor, with no human to ask.
Sensitive and personal data reaching or leaving models and agents — bulk retrieval, unusual destinations, abnormal access patterns.
What an AI incident reached, how far it spread, and a report in the required form — while preserving system state (Art. 73(6)).
AI and agent activity held for more than 1,000 days in the same normalized record as cloud, SaaS, and identity activity — so an incident can be traced into the systems the agent touched, rather than stopping at the model boundary.
Every regulator splits into “configure it correctly” and “prove what happened.” The second is triggered by an attacker, in hours, and it’s where every hard number lives.
Posture evidences a control’s design. Mitiga evidences its operation — the part auditors and regulators find failing.
Scope, impact, and root cause inside the 4-hour, 72-hour, and 4-business-day windows.
1,000+ days of tamper-resistant, exportable history, still there when anyone asks.
Watch the accepted risks, by-design exceptions, and valid credentials posture leaves standing.
Agentless and unilateral — the one SaaS risk reduction security can commit to on a board slide.
Every hard number lives in the evidence half. None attach to a configuration control.
PCI DSS log retention
NYDFS audit trails
HIPAA retention
DORA initial report
NIS2 & GDPR notification
SEC business-day disclosure
A config failure produces a remediation item. An evidence failure produces the sentence that draws enforcement and litigation: “the entity was unable to determine the scope of unauthorized access.”
Posture reduces exposure, but ends where compromise begins; it reports a state, not a change, and needs a business owner’s yes to fix anything.
A snapshot can’t answer a change-management or audit clause that is written in events. And AI rules, written around a running system, are where posture-first offers least.
You don’t meet a breach-notification deadline by scanning harder. You meet it by having kept the evidence — and being able to read it before the clock runs out.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum, sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus.
Error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore.
Ipsum quia dolor sit amet consectetur adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt.
Voluptatem sequi nesciunt, neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet consectetur.
