Break glass accounts expose the real problem in emergency access

At a glance

What this is: This is an analysis of break glass accounts and the governance controls needed to keep emergency access from becoming a takeover path.

Why it matters: It matters because IAM and PAM teams must design emergency access that works under pressure without creating standing high-risk access that attackers can abuse.

Context

Break glass accounts are emergency access identities used when normal authentication or access control paths are unavailable. The governance problem is that the same privileges that make them useful in a crisis can also make them dangerous if they are not tightly isolated from everyday identity workflows.

Zluri frames the issue through outage, lockout, and breach scenarios, but the deeper identity question is how to preserve control without creating an always-available backdoor. For IAM, IGA, and PAM teams, this is a lifecycle and governance problem as much as an access-control problem.

Key questions

Q: What breaks when break glass accounts are treated like everyday admin access?

A: When emergency access is treated like routine administration, it stops being an emergency control and becomes standing privileged access. That increases the chance that a single exposed credential can bypass normal governance, spread across multiple systems, and outlive the incident it was meant to contain. The control only works when use is rare, logged, and tightly scoped.

Q: Why do overprivileged break glass accounts increase incident impact?

A: Because the account can reach many systems from a single privileged entry point. If it is used during a compromise, the attacker or responder can alter security settings, access sensitive applications, and potentially affect the whole environment from one identity. Broad emergency privilege increases the blast radius instead of containing it.

Q: How should organisations test emergency access accounts?

A: They should validate that the account can still be used when the primary control path fails, that the approved custodians can reach it, and that access can be restored and revoked cleanly after the test. A break glass account that has never been exercised is not a reliable recovery control.

Q: Who should own break glass procedures when access spans IAM and operations teams?

A: Ownership should sit with the team that can enforce the control end to end, usually identity security or privileged access management, with operations and application owners contributing requirements. The process needs clear approval criteria, monitoring responsibilities, and revocation authority. Shared ownership without explicit accountability often leads to inconsistent use, weak audits, and slower response when emergency access is genuinely needed.

Technical breakdown

Why break glass accounts bypass normal controls

Break glass accounts are designed to sit outside routine access paths so administrators can recover systems when MFA, conditional access, or an identity provider is unavailable. That means they intentionally bypass controls that normally enforce least privilege, approval gates, and step-up authentication. The architecture only works if the emergency path is exceptional, tightly scoped, and materially separate from daily administration. Once the same account is used for ordinary work, the control boundary disappears and the account becomes a standing administrative credential rather than an emergency mechanism.

Practical implication: keep emergency access separate from standard admin workflows and treat any overlap as a governance defect.

Why hardcoded credentials and shared secrets raise the risk

The Uber example in the source article shows the core failure mode: a hardcoded credential in a script gave attackers a path to privileged access, which then let them reach multiple internal services. Shared or embedded credentials are fragile because they are easy to copy, hard to revoke quickly, and often invisible to access review processes. In emergency access contexts, that problem becomes worse when the secret is stored in a way that does not preserve ownership clarity or rotation discipline. A break glass account is only as safe as the secrecy and rotation model around it.

Practical implication: inventory every emergency credential, remove hardcoded instances, and tie revocation to a defined lifecycle.

How emergency access turns into blast radius when privilege is excessive

Once a break glass account carries broad administrative rights, it can be used to alter security settings, revoke legitimate controls, and access multiple connected systems. That creates an identity blast radius problem, where one emergency identity can touch far more of the environment than the incident actually requires. The article’s example of access to AWS, Google Drive, Slack, GCP, security tooling, and internal dashboards shows how quickly emergency privilege can become universal privilege when the account is not scoped to a recovery task.

Practical implication: scope emergency access to the smallest recoverable task set and limit cross-platform privilege.

Threat narrative

Attacker objective: The attacker aimed to gain and preserve administrative control over internal systems so defenders could be locked out while data was exposed and operational disruption increased.

1. Entry occurred through access to Uber's internal network, then the attacker located a PowerShell script containing hardcoded domain admin credentials.
2. Credential access became privilege escalation when that credential enabled admin-level access to internal services and security tooling.
3. Escalation produced impact by letting the attacker alter security settings, lock out defenders, and access multiple business systems and repositories.
4. The objective was to maintain control long enough to disrupt response, exfiltrate data, and force the organisation toward shutdown conditions.

NHI Mgmt Group analysis

Break glass accounts are a governance exception, not a governance substitute: Their value comes from preserving a recovery path when primary controls fail, but that same exception can become permanent if it is reused for convenience. The article shows why emergency access must be treated as a tightly bounded lifecycle object rather than a standing administrative shortcut. Practitioners should judge these accounts by how quickly they can be activated, revoked, and audited under stress.

Emergency access only works when ownership and activation criteria are unambiguous: The article correctly points to policy, monitoring, and review, but the real governance issue is who is allowed to hold, activate, and supervise the account. Shared emergency credentials without clear accountability create ambiguity at the exact moment clarity matters most. The practitioner lesson is to define ownership as part of the control, not as an afterthought.

Identity blast radius is the right concept for break glass design: A recovery account that can reach email, cloud control planes, security tools, and repositories is not just privileged, it is systemically dangerous if compromised. The article’s breach example demonstrates that the emergency path can become the fastest route to widespread impact when privilege is not tightly partitioned. Teams should design recovery access around blast-radius reduction, not around convenience.

Break glass governance should be aligned with PAM and access review discipline: Emergency accounts still need lifecycle management, periodic validation, and documented offboarding conditions. The fact that the account is meant for crisis use does not exempt it from the basic identity rules that govern exposure, rotation, and oversight. Practitioners should fold these accounts into the same control plane they use for other high-risk privileged identities.

Temporary access is only safe when the temporary state is real: If an emergency account has no expiry, weak separation, or unclear monitoring, it becomes permanent risk with an emergency label. That is not resilience, it is unmanaged privilege. The practical conclusion is to ensure the account exists for recovery only, and not as a hidden parallel admin model.

What this signals

Identity blast radius is the key design issue here: A recovery account that can touch cloud control planes, collaboration tools, security platforms, and repositories can become the fastest route to widespread compromise if it is abused. Practitioners should therefore design break glass access as a narrow recovery path, not as a broad rescue credential.

Emergency access does not remove the need for lifecycle governance. The account still needs clear ownership, validated credentials, periodic testing, and an offboarding condition, because a permanent emergency path is just another form of unmanaged privilege.

For practitioners

• Define emergency access ownership and activation Assign named custodians, documented approvers, and explicit activation criteria for each break glass account so the control can be used without hesitation or confusion during an outage or breach.
• Remove hardcoded emergency credentials Search scripts, vaults, and admin runbooks for embedded secrets that could expose break glass access, then replace them with managed credentials that can be rotated and revoked cleanly.
• Isolate break glass credentials from normal workflows Keep emergency accounts out of daily admin use, conditional access paths, and shared provisioning processes so their access state remains exceptional and easy to audit.
• Test recovery access on a fixed cadence Run scheduled recovery tests to confirm that the account still bypasses the intended failure mode, that the credentials are reachable by the right custodians, and that revocation still works afterward.
• Reduce the privilege footprint of emergency accounts Scope each account to the smallest set of recovery tasks needed to restore control, then remove broad rights that let the account reach unrelated business systems and security tooling.

Key takeaways

• Break glass accounts solve a real recovery problem, but they create a high-risk privileged path if they are shared, broad, or used outside emergencies.
• The Uber incident in the source article shows how hardcoded credentials and admin-level access can let one emergency path become a takeover path.
• The control lesson is to treat emergency access as tightly governed privileged identity, with explicit ownership, scoped access, and routine validation.

Key terms

• Break-Glass Account: An emergency credential used when normal access paths fail or become unavailable. These accounts are essential for recovery, but they are also high risk because they often bypass standard workflows, so they need tight vaulting, strong authentication, dual control, and continuous monitoring.
• Identity Blast Radius: The amount of damage a compromised identity can cause across systems, data, and infrastructure. In NHI environments, it is shaped by permissions, network reach, and administrative capability rather than by the credential alone. Reducing blast radius is a containment strategy that limits lateral movement and data exposure.
• Emergency Access: Emergency access is elevated access granted for urgent operational or recovery needs, often under tighter monitoring and time limits. In ERP systems, it must be attributed, approved, and reviewed because it can bypass normal role boundaries and create hidden privilege concentration.
• Hardcoded Credential: A secret such as a password, API key, or token embedded directly in source code rather than retrieved from a secure vault at runtime. Hardcoded credentials are one of the most common and dangerous NHI vulnerabilities.

Deepen your knowledge

NHI governance, agentic AI identity, and machine identity lifecycle are core topics in our NHI Foundation Level course, the industry's only accredited NHI security programme. If you are building or maturing an IAM programme, it is worth exploring.