Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
18/08/2026 2:45 pm
TL;DR: Compliance is shifting from annual evidence-chasing to continuous assurance, with Seclore arguing that automation, integration, and real-time visibility can turn proof into a byproduct of secure operations. The implication is that data-level controls, not spreadsheet-driven audits, become the foundation for resilient governance.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Seclore: Redefining Compliance: From Chasing Checkboxes to Building Confidence
By the numbers:
- 82 percent of compliance leaders reported negative consequences, nsequences from third-party risk management in the past year.
- 76 percent of compliance leaders are prioritizing better third-party risk insight, according to Gartner's Future of Compliance 2030.
- Research published in 2025 shows a machine-learning-based framework reduced compliance process time from seven to one and a half days.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams build continuous assurance into compliance programmes?
A: Start by treating evidence as a live control output, not a quarterly artefact.
Q: Why does continuous compliance matter for identity governance?
A: Continuous compliance matters because identity controls change constantly through joins, moves, leavers, privilege changes, and exceptions.
Q: What do teams get wrong about automated compliance evidence?
A: They often automate collection without fixing control design.
Practitioner guidance
- Automate evidence capture at the control point Pull logs, access events, encryption status, and policy checks directly from source systems so audit evidence is generated continuously rather than reconstructed in spreadsheets.
- Map compliance controls to identity records Tie each regulated data control to the human, third-party, and non-human identities that can influence it, including service accounts and delegated access paths.
- Unify assurance reporting across frameworks Build one evidence model that reuses the same control outputs across GDPR, industry mandates, and internal policy instead of maintaining separate audit packs.
What's in the full article
Seclore's full blog covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Gartner-tracked compliance trend context and the supporting evidence behind the 82 percent third-party risk figure
- Step-by-step examples of how automation, integration, and real-time dashboards are used together in practice
- The article's view of AI-driven evidence validation, regulator-ready APIs, and data lineage transparency
- Specific implementation steps for embedding compliance into daily operations rather than treating it as an annual review exercise
👉 Read Seclore's analysis of continuous assurance and compliance confidence →
Continuous assurance and data governance: what changes for teams?
Explore further
18/08/2026 3:28 pm
Continuous assurance is becoming an identity governance problem, not just a compliance workflow problem. Once evidence is generated from live systems, the quality of IAM, PAM, and NHI governance determines whether that evidence is trustworthy. If standing access, orphaned accounts, or unmanaged service credentials exist, continuous assurance only accelerates the visibility of weak controls. Practitioners should treat assurance design as a control architecture decision, not a reporting upgrade.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when continuous assurance fails?
A: Accountability sits with the owners of identity governance, the application teams controlling entitlements, and the audit function that relies on the evidence. If controls are fragmented, no single party can prove that access was reviewed, enforced, and remediated in time. The answer is a shared operating model with named control ownership.
👉 Read our full editorial: Continuous assurance is reshaping compliance and data governance
