Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
24/06/2026 8:04 pm
TL;DR: PAM migrations fail when discovery, dependency mapping, and account ownership are incomplete, because stolen credentials and password attacks remain dominant breach paths, according to Verizon’s 2025 DBIR and Microsoft. The security problem is not migration itself but blind spots that let privileged accounts, service accounts, and dependencies slip past governance.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Hydden: PAM migrations are complex and time-consuming
By the numbers:
- Verizon’s 2025 DBIR shows that stolen credentials are a dominant factor in Basic Web Application Attacks.
- Microsoft reports that password-based attacks account for over 99% of the 600 million daily identity attacks it observes.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should teams reduce risk during a PAM migration?
A: Teams should reduce risk by discovering every privileged account first, then validating dependencies before any vaulting or rotation begins.
Q: Why do privileged accounts create migration risk in hybrid environments?
A: Privileged accounts create migration risk because they are often spread across cloud, on-premises, applications, and local systems, with ownership that is not consistently documented.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about PAM onboarding?
A: Security teams often treat onboarding as a technical move instead of a governance exercise.
Practitioner guidance
- Build a complete privileged identity inventory Scan on-premises, cloud, database, application, and infrastructure estates before migration so every privileged account and service account is explicitly accounted for.
- Map application and service dependencies Document which systems consume each credential, then validate those dependencies before rotating, vaulting, or decommissioning anything.
- Right-size dormant and over-privileged accounts Remove dormant accounts, consolidate duplicate credentials, and reduce unnecessary privilege before onboarding identities into the target PAM platform.
What's in the full article
Hydden's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Step-by-step pre-migration checklist for privileged account discovery and scoping.
- Practical workflow for mapping application dependencies before credential rotation.
- Operational guidance for sequencing onboarding waves around risk and continuity.
- Post-migration monitoring approach for drift, shadow access, and missing accounts.
👉 Read Hydden's analysis of PAM migration complexity and visibility gaps →
CyberArk migrations and PAM visibility: what teams miss first?
Explore further
25/06/2026 5:12 am
Visibility debt is the real migration bottleneck: PAM migrations fail first at the inventory layer, not the vaulting layer. If an organisation cannot name every privileged account, service account, and dependency before cutover, it is not migrating control, it is relocating uncertainty. The practical conclusion is that migration scope must be earned through discovery, not assumed from existing documentation.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 72% of organisations have experienced or suspect they have experienced a breach of non-human identities, according to The 2024 ESG Report: Managing Non-Human Identities.
- Enterprises that have experienced a compromised NHI averaged 2.7 separate incidents in the past 12 months.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do teams keep a PAM programme from drifting after migration?
A: Teams keep a PAM programme from drifting by running continuous discovery after cutover and comparing new privileged identities against approved scope. That process catches shadow accounts, new service credentials, and policy exceptions before they become normalised. Without it, the target platform gradually inherits the same blind spots the migration was meant to remove.
👉 Read our full editorial: CyberArk migration visibility gaps are the real PAM risk
