Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
22/07/2026 4:35 pm
TL;DR: Teams leaving StrongDM should treat the move as a redesign of access governance, not a vendor swap, because static roles and session-based access no longer fit dynamic cloud, automation, and AI-driven workflows, according to Apono. The core issue is that standing privilege was built for a human-paced model that cannot safely absorb intent-driven, ephemeral access at machine speed.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Apono: Moving Beyond StrongDM: A Practical Game Plan for Migrating to Apono
By the numbers:
- 72% of organisations have experienced or suspect they have experienced a breach of non-human identities , 46% confirmed, 26% suspected.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should teams migrate from static roles to Zero Standing Privilege without disrupting operations?
A: Start by inventorying current access, then redesign around task intent, scope, and duration rather than copying role mappings into a new platform.
Q: Why do standing privileges become more dangerous in multi-cloud environments?
A: Because each cloud can accumulate excess rights independently, so a role that looks acceptable in one platform may still create lateral movement risk when combined with access in another.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about replacing one access platform with another?
A: They often focus on feature parity instead of governance redesign.
Practitioner guidance
- Build a standing privilege inventory Export current resource mappings, role memberships, and access frequency data before planning any migration.
- Recast approvals around task intent Define the minimum scope, duration, and justification for each common operational task, then convert those into requestable policies.
- Phase the migration by resource criticality Move high-frequency resources first, then critical systems, then long-tail resources that are rarely accessed.
What's in the full article
Apono's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Resource-by-resource migration guidance for databases, Kubernetes clusters, servers, and cloud entitlements
- Practical sequencing advice for running StrongDM and the target access platform in parallel
- Policy design examples for request scope, approval thresholds, and access duration
- Workflow guidance for engineers and DevOps teams using chat, portal, or CLI access flows
👉 Read Apono's migration guide for moving beyond StrongDM →
StrongDM replacement planning: is your access model ready for ZSP?
Explore further
24/07/2026 4:11 pm
Static roles are an assumption, not a control. They were designed for environments where privilege could be predicted, reused, and reviewed on a human timescale. That assumption fails when cloud delivery, automation, and AI-driven workflows need access that changes with the task and expires with the task. The implication is that identity governance has to stop treating role persistence as normal and start treating it as a design defect.
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 2024 ESG Report: Managing Non-Human Identities.
- Two-thirds of enterprises have endured a successful cyberattack resulting from compromised non-human identities, with a quarter encountering multiple attacks, which shows the problem is already operational rather than theoretical.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do organisations know whether their access model is really Zero Standing Privilege?
A: Look for whether access exists only for a specific task, expires automatically, and is scoped narrowly enough that users and automation cannot carry broad privilege between actions. If reviews still find persistent admin rights or durable group-based access, the model is not yet zero standing privilege in practice.
👉 Read our full editorial: StrongDM migration exposes the limits of static access models
