Topic starter
08/06/2026 4:44 pm
TL;DR: IAM is no longer sufficient on its own as identity volumes, weak MFA patterns, and password exposure push credentials to the centre of access control, according to Axiad’s analysis. The shift to ICAM makes credential issuance, tracking, update, and revocation the governance work that now determines identity resilience.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Axiad: “IAM is Dead...Long Live ICAM”.
Key questions
Q: How should security teams govern credentials when IAM is no longer enough?
A: Security teams should treat credentials as governed identity assets with explicit lifecycle ownership.
Q: Why do weak MFA implementations still leave organisations exposed even when passwords are reduced?
A: Weak MFA can still be bypassed when attackers exploit prompt bombing, social engineering, or fallback factors that remain in the flow.
Q: What breaks when credential inventory and revocation are incomplete?
A: Access governance becomes detached from the actual trust material in use, so stale or unknown credentials can keep working long after ownership has changed.
Practitioner guidance
- Govern credential lifecycle as a core control Assign ownership for issuing, tracking, updating, and revoking credentials across human and machine identities so that trust artifacts do not outlive their purpose.
- Inventory possession factors across the estate Build a complete inventory of certificates, passkeys, hardware keys, TLS credentials, and API keys so credential sprawl is visible before it becomes an access gap.
- Reduce reliance on password-based authentication Where possible, replace reusable knowledge factors with stronger possession factors that are unique, revocable, and easier to govern at scale.
Bottom line: IAM is no longer sufficient when the credential itself has become the practical control point for access.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
08/06/2026 6:31 pm
ICAM is the right name for what identity governance has become: the control point has shifted from static identity records to the credential artifacts that actually carry trust. When passwords and weak MFA variants fail at scale, access policy alone cannot absorb the gap. The practical implication is that identity programmes must be measured by credential governance depth, not by login coverage.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should teams measure whether ICAM is actually working?
A: They should look for complete credential visibility, clear ownership, fast revocation, and low reliance on shared or reusable secrets. If credentials can be traced, updated, and retired without delay across human and non-human identities, the governance model is functioning; if not, access assurance is still fragile.
👉 Read our full editorial: IAM is giving way to ICAM as credentials become the real control point
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group