Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
10/06/2026 12:00 am
TL;DR: Cisco’s Meraki Systems Manager end-of-sale and 2029 support sunset are pushing teams toward identity-centric UEM models that bind device control, directory identity, and network authentication into one architecture, according to JumpCloud. The governance issue is not simply replacing one console with another, but collapsing disconnected identity and device-management silos before they create control gaps.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by JumpCloud: updated analysis of Cisco Meraki Systems Manager end-of-sale and identity-centric UEM
By the numbers:
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should teams migrate from profile-based MDM to identity-centric UEM?
A: Treat the move as a control-plane redesign, not a device rollout.
Q: Why does identity-centric UEM matter for least privilege?
A: Because endpoint authority is no longer isolated from directory authority.
Q: What breaks when Cloud RADIUS and endpoint identity are poorly aligned?
A: Network access becomes inconsistent, especially when certificates, directory objects, and device state do not agree.
Practitioner guidance
- Map identity dependencies before migration Inventory which device policies, login flows, and network checks depend on the same directory objects so you can spot hidden coupling before you replace legacy MDM.
- Validate agent trust boundaries Test whether the new endpoint agent can be isolated by endpoint security tools, blocked by allowlisting errors, or over-granted local privileges.
- Rebuild certificate lifecycle controls Treat EAP-TLS certificates as governed identities, not static configuration.
What's in the full article
JumpCloud's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Step-by-step migration considerations for moving from Meraki SM profile management to a unified directory-led endpoint model.
- Practical troubleshooting notes for profile concurrency conflicts, agent isolation, and RADIUS certificate mismatch scenarios.
- Details on Cloud RADIUS integration paths for Meraki hardware and the authentication flow changes that accompany them.
- Operational comparisons between profile-based MDM and agent-based UEM for Linux lifecycle control and deeper endpoint execution.
👉 Read JumpCloud's analysis of the Meraki Systems Manager end-of-sale and identity-centric UEM →
Meraki SM sunset and identity-centric UEM: what changes for teams?
Explore further
10/06/2026 2:36 am
Identity-centric UEM works because it collapses endpoint control into the same governance plane as identity, but that consolidation also exposes the quality of the directory itself. Once device access, local login, and network authentication share a control surface, stale identities and excessive privileges stop being separate problems. The field should treat UEM migration as a directory governance event, not a device project. Practitioners need to measure whether the directory can safely absorb endpoint authority.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 67% of organisations still rely heavily on static credentials despite the risks they pose to agentic AI deployments, according to The 2026 Infrastructure Identity Survey.
- That same survey found that only 13% of security leaders feel extremely prepared for the reality of agentic AI, which shows how fast governance is lagging behind operational adoption.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own identity-centric endpoint governance?
A: Ownership should sit across identity, endpoint, and network teams with one accountable control owner. If those functions stay siloed, no one can reliably manage the lifecycle of directory objects, certificates, agents, and local access together.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity-centric UEM after Meraki SM sunset changes endpoint governance
