Shared responsibility is not shared testing
Most SaaS incidents are not vendor platform breaches. They are customer-side identity, permission and integration failures.
Capability
A compromised identity is not only a password problem. It can carry roles, OAuth grants, application permissions, API tokens, sharing rights, service relationships, and access to sensitive data across multiple SaaS systems. RedMaw tests the customer-controlled side of SaaS and identity to prove the real blast radius.
The question this answers
If this account is compromised, which systems and sensitive records become reachable?
Each hop validated by successful exploitation
The framing
Organizations often respond to account compromise by resetting the password and forcing the user to authenticate again. That is necessary. It may not be sufficient.
An attacker may already hold:
The identity graph around the user can outlive the password.
Identity security is often treated as an administrative problem: users, groups, roles, MFA, provisioning. An attacker sees access relationships instead.
Which identity can reach which application? Which role can access which record? Which delegated application has broader access than expected? Which service account sits outside normal user controls? Which permission creates a route to sensitive customer information?
The point is not to grade configuration hygiene. It is to understand attacker reachability.
OAuth makes legitimate integrations possible, but delegated access can quietly become part of the persistence layer after a compromise. RedMaw examines customer-controlled OAuth and permission relationships for issues such as over-broad grants, unnecessary delegated permissions, third-party applications with sensitive access, and grants that remain useful after a password change.
A finding becomes more important when it can be tied to real data or system reachability.
Shared responsibility
RedMaw does not attack the SaaS provider. It tests the part you control: identities, roles, permissions, sharing settings, leaked keys, customer-managed configuration, delegated application access and sensitive-data reachability.
This boundary is deliberate. Your SaaS vendor secures its platform. You still own how your organization configures and uses it.
A file, folder, record, dashboard or workspace can be functioning exactly as designed and still be exposed more broadly than the organization intended.
The useful finding is not “sharing is enabled.” It is what becomes reachable because of it.
Human users are only part of the identity surface. API keys, service accounts, integration tokens and machine credentials may hold durable access to systems that are less visible in normal identity-review workflows.
A leaked credential matters when it works. Within approved scope, RedMaw validates credential exposure and connects it to the resources the credential can access.
Validated findings enter the RedMaw findings-state layer. They can be pushed to Jira, GitHub Issues, Slack or email with proof and remediation guidance attached.
After the fix, RedMaw re-tests the issue. The finding closes when the exploit no longer works.
Typical questions
What RedMaw tests
Each area below is exercised by attempting exploitation within authorized scope, and the result is recorded as evidence.
Evidence
A SaaS & Identity finding should be able to show:
Boundaries
Adversarial testing is only credible when its limits are explicit.
One platform
The same engine, evidence model and findings state run across all four surfaces.
Technical reference
Most SaaS incidents are not vendor platform breaches. They are customer-side identity, permission and integration failures.
Machine identities accumulate access faster than they lose it, and they cross tenants where humans do not.
Tokens survive password resets. A stale grant is standing access with no owner watching it.
No password was stolen. One was never needed.
Single sign-on concentrates trust. A broken assertion boundary concentrates the damage.
The control was enabled and working. It was answered anyway.
Nobody offboards a service account.
The document is working exactly as shared. That is the finding.
The boundary on the architecture diagram is not always the boundary in the token.
Authentication already happened. The token is the proof, and proof can be copied.
A weakness does not start working on the day it gets an identifier. It was already working. The identifier is just when defenders found out.
Passwords are only part of effective access. OAuth grants, sessions and service credentials can outlive the credential that started the incident.
Organizations assign security ownership by technology. Attackers organize around reachable trust.
DORA changes the testing conversation from isolated evidence toward an operating resilience process that can be demonstrated.
Keep going
Continuously test what an attacker can actually reach across your applications, SaaS identities, internal infrastructure and AI systems.