Why PADS Now
What Is the Security Gap PADS Fills
No matter how modern your security stack is, it still stops protecting data at the same moment: when access is granted. Firewalls, EDR, IAM, Zero Trust, and DLP are all designed to decide who can get in. They are built on the belief that if you can control who gets access you can protect data.
The gap is not due to poor implementation; it is an architectural assumption shared across the industry and across the solution set.
Once access is approved, files decrypt, permissions expand, and activity appears legitimate by design. That is why attackers no longer break in - they log in.
It is why 74% of data theft occurs post authentication. Modern cybersecurity stops at access. Modern data theft begins after it. Post-Authentication Data Security (PADS) exists to close that gap.
Deepdive: The Post Authentication Gap
Identity Compromise
Identity compromise is routine. Phishing, MFA fatigue, token replay, SaaS abuse, insider misuse, and supply-chain compromise all exploit legitimate access paths.
Data Movement
Cost of Exposure
Limits to Zero Trust:
Zero Trust is one of the most important advancements in modern cybersecurity. It transformed how organizations think about access, identity, and trust. It reduced unauthorized entry, limited lateral movement, and replaced fragile network perimeters with continuous verification.
And yet, organizations with mature Zero Trust programs continue to suffer devastating data breaches.
This is not because Zero Trust failed. It’s because Zero Trust was never designed to protect data after access is granted - and many organizations have quietly been relying on it to do exactly that.
Limitations of DLP
Traditional DLP did not fail. It reached the boundary it was designed for.
Security architectures long assumed that controlling access and observing data movement after - was sufficient. That held when misuse was rare and exfiltration looked abnormal.
Today, attackers authenticate, operate inside approved workflows, and extract data in ways that appear legitimate. In that environment, observing misuse after data is readable is no longer enough.
Compliance Standards from HIPAA to NIST to FFIEC oversight
Compliance was not absent in the largest financial institutions that have suffered a headline breach such as: Capital One, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Equifax, Robinhood, First American Financial. It simply wasn't enough.
Financial services firms operate under some of the strictest cybersecurity regimes in the world: SEC disclosure rules, NIST frameworks, FFIEC oversight, PCI requirements. These frameworks rigorously govern systems, identities, encryption, and oversight - and they do so effectively, for what they were designed to protect.
What they do not require is persistent protection of data once access is granted. Encryption at rest protects stolen devices. Encryption in transit protects data on the wire. Neither protects files after a valid login.
That is why institutions can meet every standard, pass every audit - and still lose their data.
Deepdive: The Post Authentication Gap in Finance
Pen testing Doesn’t Test the Post Authentication Gap
Pentesting frameworks referenced in NIST, SOC 2, PCI-DSS, ISO 27001, and similar standards focus on essential hygiene. They assess vulnerability management, patching discipline, network segmentation, authentication configuration, and detection capabilities. That’s fine, and these controls are necessary. They are also insufficient for protecting data once access is granted.
This mismatch explains why breach postmortems often sound identical. Controls worked as designed. Detection systems functioned. Identity tools authenticated users correctly. And attackers still walked away with the data.
Executives believe pentests validate data security, when in reality they validate infrastructure resilience. The misconception is subtle but costly. Data protection after authentication is rarely tested, measured, or discussed in executive forums.
