You’ve successfully deployed your Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) tool. The initial scan is complete, and the dashboard is lighting up. But instead of feeling secure, you feel overwhelmed. You’re staring at 10,000 “critical” findings—misconfigured buckets, over-privileged users, and shadow data caches you didn’t know existed.
The question isn’t “what did we find?” The question is, “what do we do now?”
This is the most common friction point in modern data security. DSPM tools are excellent at surfacing risk, but they often lack the leverage to fix it. When security teams rely solely on DSPM without a strategy for unstructured data management and governance, they end up with a high-fidelity list of problems and zero bandwidth to solve them.
In this post, you will learn:
- Why a DSPM-only strategy often leads to alert fatigue rather than risk reduction.
- The 9 critical challenges that stall DSPM deployments in real-world environments.
- How to move beyond simple discovery to defensible, automated remediation.
- A 30/60/90-day plan to operationalize your findings effectively.
Closing the loop requires more than just watching the dashboard; it requires a shift from discovery to action—a methodology central to how Congruity360 approaches data security.
What DSPM Does Well (So We’re Not Throwing It Out)
Before dissecting the gaps, it is important to acknowledge why DSPM is a critical piece of the security stack. At its core, DSPM provides visibility that was previously impossible in multi-cloud and hybrid environments.
It answers fundamental questions:
- Discovery: Where does sensitive data live across IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS?
- Classification: Is this file PII, PHI, or intellectual property?
- Prioritization: Which data stores are exposed to the public internet or accessible by everyone in the organization?
The Reality Check: DSPM is necessary for situational awareness, but it is not sufficient for risk resolution. Visibility without capability is just anxiety.
Why “DSPM Challenges” Keep Showing Up in Real Deployments
The struggles organizations face with DSPM aren’t usually because the technology is broken; it’s because the volume of findings outpaces the organization’s capacity for remediation.
Security teams assume that finding the data is the hard part. In reality, the hard part is determining why that data exists, who owns it, and whether it can be deleted—without breaking business processes. When you treat DSPM as a passive monitoring tool rather than an active management discipline, findings accumulate faster than they can be resolved.
The 9 Most Common DSPM Challenges (and What They Reveal)
If you are evaluating or optimizing a DSPM solution, you need to anticipate these nine friction points.
1) Shadow data + data sprawl
- What it looks like: Your DSPM finds sensitive data in development environments, “temporary” S3 buckets, and forgotten SharePoint sites.
- Why it happens: Data is fluid. Developers spin up instances, copy production databases for testing, and forget to delete them.
- Why it’s worse in a DSPM-only approach: You see the sprawl, but lack the context to know if it’s currently in use or safe to delete.
- The Fix: Implement automated lifecycle policies that flag and quarantine aged or stale data before it becomes a permanent liability.
2) Classification accuracy problems
- What it looks like: Thousands of false positives where generic invoices are flagged as sensitive financial records, or false negatives where IP is missed.
- Why it happens: Generic regex-based classifiers struggle with context.
- Why it’s worse in a DSPM-only approach: Security teams waste cycles validating findings rather than fixing them, eroding trust in the tool.
- The Fix: Use advanced, content-aware classification (like Machine Learning models) that learns from your specific document types, rather than relying solely on pattern matching.
3) Inconsistent classification across environments
- What it looks like: A file is labeled “Confidential” in AWS but “Internal” when copied to Box.
- Why it happens: Different platforms use different metadata schemas and tagging logic.
- Why it’s worse in a DSPM-only approach: Policy enforcement becomes impossible when the data definitions drift across clouds.
- The Fix: Centralize your classification taxonomy. Your governance layer must enforce a single source of truth for tagging, regardless of where the file resides.
4) Integration overhead (IAM/SIEM/DLP/SOAR)
- What it looks like: DSPM alerts sit in a silo, disconnected from your identity management or incident response workflows.
- Why it happens: Point solutions often lack deep, bi-directional integrations with legacy tech stacks.
- Why it’s worse in a DSPM-only approach: You have to manually cross-reference user privileges with data sensitivity, slowing down response times.
- The Fix: Prioritize solutions with open APIs that can feed data context directly into your SIEM and SOAR for automated triage.
5) Alert fatigue and “so what?” reporting
- What it looks like: Dashboards showing “500 Open Risks” with no clear indication of which one will cause a breach today.
- Why it happens: Lack of business context. A file might be “sensitive,” but if it’s encrypted and in a private folder, it’s lower risk than an unencrypted file in a public bucket.
- Why it’s worse in a DSPM-only approach: Without risk scoring based on access and activity, everything looks like a priority.
- The Fix: Focus on “attack path analysis”—prioritize findings based on actual exploitability, not just data sensitivity.
6) Limited remediation automation
- What it looks like: You find 1,000 exposed files, but the only “action” available is to open a Jira ticket for IT.
- Why it happens: Many DSPM tools are read-only to avoid liability for breaking applications.
- Why it’s worse in a DSPM-only approach: The gap between detection and remediation grows every day.
- The Fix: Use a platform that supports active remediation—capabilities to inject tags, encrypt, move, or delete files directly.
7) Ownership gaps
- What it looks like: You find a folder of sensitive HR data from 2019, but the creator left the company three years ago.
- Why it happens: Employee turnover and unstructured data lacking clear metadata.
- Why it’s worse in a DSPM-only approach: IT is terrified to delete “orphan data” for fear of deleting something critical.
- The Fix: Implement a “Custodian-Driven” review process where department heads validate data utility, shifting responsibility from IT to the business units.
8) Cost + skills constraints at scale
- What it looks like: DSPM scans create massive egress fees, or the tool is too complex for junior analysts to manage.
- Why it happens: Scanning petabytes of cloud data is computationally expensive and technically demanding.
- Why it’s worse in a DSPM-only approach: You pay for the scan but don’t get the ROI of reduced storage or risk.
- The Fix: Combine DSPM with data minimization. Deleting ROT (Redundant, Obsolete, Trivial) data before scanning reduces costs significantly.
9) “Point-in-time posture” vs ongoing governance
- What it looks like: Your environment is clean on Monday, but by Friday, users have created new risks that won’t be caught until the next full scan.
- Why it happens: Scanning is often periodic rather than continuous.
- Why it’s worse in a DSPM-only approach: You have a snapshot of security, not a video feed.
- The Fix: Move toward continuous monitoring that triggers alerts on file creation or modification events.
The Real Problem: DSPM Finds Risk—But Doesn’t Always Remove It
The fundamental limitation of a DSPM-only approach is that it treats the symptom (exposure) without treating the disease (ungoverned data).
Consider this comparison to broader governance concepts:
- DSPM: “You have a leak in the basement.”
- Governance & Remediation: “Here is the valve to shut it off, and here is the plan to replace the pipe.”
Many organizations stop at the “Find” phase. They generate reports for auditors but fail to implement the “Fix” and “Prove” phases. Without a mechanism to defensibly delete or secure data, your risk posture remains static despite your investment in detection tools.
What to Pair with DSPM So It Actually Reduces Risk
To solve these challenges, you need a comprehensive platform approach that layers capability on top of visibility.
Layer 1: Content-aware classification
You must move beyond regex. Know exactly what the data is using Machine Learning that understands document context (e.g., distinguishing a resume from a bio).
Layer 2: Action engine
This is the missing link in most strategies. You need the ability to execute actions: Delete the ROT, Migrate the sensitive data to a secure enclave, Tag the files for DLP enforcement, or Tier the cold data to cheaper storage.
Layer 3: Governance workflows + evidence
Remediation must be defensible. If you delete data, you need an immutable audit trail proving who authorized it and why. This protects the organization legally and operationally.
Layer 4: Ongoing automation
Turn one-off cleanups into continuous hygiene. Set policies that automatically archive data untouched for 3 years, keeping your environment lean and scan times fast.
A 30/60/90-Day Plan to Get Out of “DSPM-Only Mode”
If you are stuck in analysis paralysis, use this framework to gain momentum.
Day 0-30: Scope and Baseline
- Define your “Crown Jewels” (the data that would kill the business if lost).
- Establish your classification taxonomy (Public, Internal, Confidential, Restricted).
- Run a baseline scan on your highest-risk repository (e.g., the primary M365 tenant or AWS production bucket).
Day 31-60: Pilot Remediation
- Identify the top 3 risks (e.g., “Global Access” on sensitive folders).
- Assign business owners to these data sets.
- Pilot a remediation workflow: Ask the owner, “Do you need this?” If no, move to a quarantine zone.
Day 61-90: Operationalize and Automate
- Connect your classification tags to your DLP or CASB for enforcement.
- Automate the “Do you need this?” workflow for all data older than 2 years.
- Establish recurring executive reporting on risk reduction (not just risk findings).
How Congruity360 Helps You Move from Findings to Defensible Action
Congruity360 offers the only solution that bridges the gap between deep discovery and automated, defensible action.
- See it all: Our Data Security Posture capabilities don’t just skim metadata; we analyze content to uncover dark data risks other tools miss.
- Fix it fast: With Actions, you can stop analyzing and start remediating. Securely delete ROT, migrate data to secure tiers, and reduce your attack surface (and storage costs) by up to 70%.
- Prove compliance: Comply360 ensures that every action is audited, policy-driven, and defensible, turning complex regulatory requirements into automated workflows.
Don’t just admire the problem. Solve it. Start your journey to defensible data security with Congruity360 today.
FAQ
What are the biggest DSPM challenges?
The most significant challenges include alert fatigue from false positives, the inability to act on findings (remediation gaps), and the difficulty of managing shadow data and sprawl in complex, hybrid environments.
Is DSPM the same as DLP?
No. DLP (Data Loss Prevention) focuses on preventing data from leaving the network in real-time. DSPM focuses on the security posture of the data where it lives—identifying misconfigurations and excessive access before a breach attempt occurs.
Why do DSPM tools generate so many alerts?
DSPM tools often lack business context. They see a “sensitive” file and flag it, without knowing if that file is a necessary business record, a duplicate, or a test file. This lack of context leads to high volumes of “technical” risk that may not be “business” risk.
How do you prioritize DSPM findings?
Prioritize based on a combination of data sensitivity and exposure. A file containing PII that is open to the public internet is a critical priority. A file containing PII that is encrypted and restricted to HR is a lower priority.What should you add to DSPM for remediation?
You need an unstructured data management (UDM) or governance platform that can execute file-level actions—such as deletion, encryption, migration, and tagging—based on the insights provided by the DSPM tool.
