Topic starter
23/06/2026 9:11 pm
TL;DR: Manual user access reviews lag when role changes, privileged access, and third-party accounts move faster than certification cycles, according to StrongDM. Review processes need quicker remediation, or stale access and incomplete evidence will keep weakening governance.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by StrongDM: “User Access Review Checklist: Best Practices & Automation”.
Key questions
Q: Why do role changes create so much access creep?
A: Role changes create access creep because organisations are faster at adding new access than removing old access.
Q: How can security teams tell whether privileged access reviews are actually working?
A: They are working when every privileged entitlement is inventoried, every decision is traceable, and revoked access is removed from all connected systems without delay.
Q: What breaks when user access reviews are still manual in hybrid environments?
A: Manual reviews break when reviewers cannot reliably see all active entitlements across cloud, on-prem, and third-party systems.
Practitioner guidance
- Map review scope to every access class Include employee, contractor, vendor, administrator, and service-account access in the same certification scope so privileged and third-party rights are not reviewed in separate blind spots.
- Trigger reviews on lifecycle events Start certifications when someone changes role, joins a new team, receives elevated access, or offboarding begins, instead of waiting for the next calendar review.
- Automate remediation for confirmed excess access Use workflow-based removal or reduction of access once a reviewer flags it, and record the approval trail so the action is auditable.
Bottom line: Manual access reviews struggle when role changes move faster than the certification process can keep up.
Glossary terms: User Access Review, Privilege Creep, Access Certification, Standing Privilege
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 19 hours ago by NHI Mgmt Group
25/06/2026 2:21 am
Review cadence is not a governance control if access changes faster than certification windows. Access review programmes were built for a world where entitlements were comparatively stable between checkpoints. In modern estates, role changes, contractor churn, and delegated admin access can all move faster than quarterly or annual review cycles. The practitioner conclusion is simple: if the control cannot see current state, it cannot govern current risk.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Over 70% of organisations lack automated access risk analysis, user access reviews and provisioning and deprovisioning, according to Pathlock's 2025 Digital Transformation and Access Risk Report.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should organisations review employee, vendor, and service-account access together?
A: Yes. Separating them creates governance gaps because the same business process often governs all three, but the risk profile is shared. A single review model gives security teams a full view of who can reach what, makes privilege creep easier to spot, and reduces the chance that offboarding or delegated access is missed.
👉 Read our full editorial: User access reviews are failing where roles change fastest