Why IRM and DLP Work Better Together to Support a Stronger Security Posture

Effective cybersecurity requires a comprehensive and holistic approach. Such an approach layers multiple controls across different attack surfaces, such as perimeter defenses (firewalls and VPNs), endpoint protection, identity management, and data security. Each layer addresses specific threat vectors while offering protection that’s the sum of its parts.

This requires a specific intention to think about these layers and strategically implement them in complementary ways to maximize the effectiveness of both. Otherwise, while piecing together disparate point solutions might address specific threats, it may inevitably create gaps where threats can slip through.

Instead of buying and managing multiple tools and hoping they work together, security professionals should consider how those tools might work together from the onset of developing their strategy. That way, efficiencies can be found and a better vendor might be discovered.

One such combination is connecting IRM (Insider Risk Management) and DLP (Data Loss Prevention) solutions. 

Both IRM and DLP focus on protecting organizational data, but from different angles. IRM assesses and monitors the people who have access to data, while DLP controls what happens to the data itself. Here’s how the two can work well together.

What is IRM (Insider Risk Management)?

Insider Risk Management (IRM) is a framework and set of practices for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks posed by people with legitimate access to an organization’s resources, such as employees, contractors, and business partners.

On the threat and risk side, IRM encompasses malicious insiders, negligence, and compromised credentials, which make up a large part of security incidents. In 2024, 83% of organizations reported an insider attack, while in 2025, insider threats cost organizations an average of $17.4 million annually. 

Traditional risk management addresses threats that sit outside an organization's operation, whereas IRM focuses specifically on internal threats, whether intentional or not, because of their access to organizational systems, assets, data, and other sensitive information.

As part of an IRM strategy, organizations should determine things such as: 

• Which employees handle sensitive data?
• Which roles have elevated system privileges?
• Which business processes create opportunities for data misuse?

A departing employee with access to customer databases represents a different risk than a system administrator with root access to production servers. Understanding these distinctions allows organizations to map potential incident scenarios. 

Although IRM requires tools and processes, risk assessment comes first. Before investing in monitoring software or establishing response protocols, organizations should first understand their current risk posture. This means inventorying data assets and documenting who has access to what, which helps identify gaps in existing controls.

Effective IRM starts with identifying risk and assessing scope. After that, organizations can start investing in tools and process changes. 

That's where DLP can play a role. Once organizations understand their insider risk landscape, they can configure data controls that address the specific scenarios they've identified. 

What is DLP (Data Loss Prevention)?

Data Loss Prevention (DLP) refers to the technologies and processes used to prevent sensitive data from leaving organizational control. DLP encompasses all forms of data loss, whether it occurs through malicious exfiltration, accidental exposure, or inadequate protection.

DLP is a part of overall data security, which covers encryption, access controls, backup and recovery, secure storage infrastructure, and secure transmission protocols. DLP operates as the enforcement layer within this broader framework. It ensures that data is protected and stored in ways that minimize leaks and exposures. 

As for DLP tools, these are specifically geared to monitor data across three states: 

• At rest (such as when it’s stored on a server)
• In transit (such as when it’s traveling over a network)
• In use (such as when it’s being used in an application)

Visibility is a key component of effective DLP. Without the right visibility, effective DLP is impossible. Organizations must know where sensitive data resides, who accesses it, how it moves through systems, and where it exits the organization. For example, a DLP system might block unauthorized file uploads to cloud storage, but only if it can identify which files contain sensitive information and recognize when upload attempts occur. This requires continuous scanning of file repositories and classification of data.

Organizations may have the best processes and tools, but blind spots can still lead to leaks and data breaches because humans are prone to making mistakes. That’s likely why 95% of data breaches in 2024 were attributed to human error. 

This is where IRM can play an important role. IRM addresses the visibility gap by focusing on user behavior and access patterns. When organizations assess insider risk, they map who has access to what data and identify access patterns that suggest misuse or compromise. This behavioral visibility complements DLP's technical controls.

Three ways DLP and IRM work together

By knowing how these elements work, security leaders can now start thinking about the overlaps between the two and ensure they strategically work together. Here are key overlaps to consider

#1 Visibility and risk assessment

By engaging in effective IRM, organizations improve visibility, which leads to better DLP. Effective DLP largely rests on visibility. Without knowing which files contain customer credit card numbers or which databases store trade secrets, DLP can’t distinguish between routine business activity and policy violations.

At the same time, the initial steps of insider risk management, specifically assessment and identifying where the risk lies, include visibility and mapping data access across the organization. This serves an essential function for optimal DLP.

Your move: Take the time to prioritize identifying and assessing your risk across all areas - on-prem, cloud, and third-party. Then you can more effectively implement visibility and (eventually) security processes, all of which result in stronger IRM and DLP.

#2 Flagging indicators of compromise

IRM might identify high-risk users but lack the technical controls to monitor their data activities. DLP, on the other hand, might flag suspicious file transfers without understanding whether the user involved has legitimate business reasons or represents an elevated risk. However, if the two are working in tandem, then they can speak to each other and spot potential risks much earlier, before they turn into a problem.

Organizations can identify indicators of compromise by understanding normal access patterns for each role, then flagging deviations like finance staff accessing engineering documents or sales representatives exfiltration unusually large datasets. This is best done if IRM and DLP are firing on all cylinders.

Your move: Via tools and documented policy, identifying your indicators of compromise, specifically behavior-based ones should be referenced and reviewed across both DLP and IRM strategies. By ensuring they’re covered across both strategies, the resulting actions (removing user access, quarantining a user, or alerting your SOC) mitigate risk more effectively across both areas.

#3 Enforcing minimal data access 

DLP ensures insider risk is mitigated because secure data practices are in place. For example, the principle of least privilege restricts data access to only what individuals need for their specific job functions, minimizing the risk of an insider attack.

On the other hand, failures in IRM typically lead to data loss because a threat was able to access data they shouldn’t have had access to or take advantage of unnecessary permissions. By having a solution or process in place that limits and prevents unnecessary access to data or escalated permissions, you can mitigate risk tied to IRM and DLP. This includes zero trust security and requires continuous verification of user identity and device health before granting data access. Identity and access control systems enforce authentication requirements and permission boundaries. These practices support DLP by reducing the attack surface which in turn means fewer people have access, mitigating insider risk.

Your move: Prioritize leveraging some of the above strategies via tools, processes, and policy. Minimizing overall access by role, function, and users support both IRM and DLP and is one of the best ways to minimize risk without slowing things down.

As Chief Technology Officer Zbyněk Sopouch advises, “Security leaders should view IRM and DLP as two layers of the same strategy: data-centric security enriched by behavioral intelligence. Aligning both ensures protection against accidental and malicious insider actions while maintaining business productivity.”

IRM and DLP are two sides of a secure coin

Cybersecurity works best as a multilayered approach. Ensuring your team is aware of these priorities and strategies helps an organization achieve defense through layers. Cybersecurity leaders should work with their team to understand how different controls interact and reinforce each other. When incident responders know that DLP can provide context about what data an insider accessed, they can prioritize investigations more effectively. 

When DLP administrators understand which users IRM has flagged as elevated risk, they can apply appropriate monitoring without creating excessive false positives for the entire organization. This creates significant efficiencies across multiple strategic priorities.

By leveraging IRM in DLP and vice versa, organizations achieve a stronger cybersecurity posture without investing more resources or time. 

Safetica provides IRM and DLP capabilities within a single platform. With Safetica, organizations deploy one system rather than coordinating between separate IRM and DLP vendors, which reduces the integration complexity that can lead to gaps in security.