TL;DR: Zero Trust secures the path to a resource, but it does not govern what an identity can do after arrival, according to Britive, which is why the article argues that Zero Standing Privileges is needed to remove persistent admin power and limit blast radius across users, workloads, and autonomous AI pipelines. Persistent access, not just network exposure, remains the control gap.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Britive: Zero Trust and Zero Standing Privileges: Why Network Control Is Only Half the Battle
By the numbers:
- Only 13% of organisations feel extremely prepared for the reality of agentic AI despite the majority racing toward autonomous adoption.
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface.
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them.
Questions worth separating out
Q: What breaks when Zero Trust only covers login and privileged access?
A: Security gaps remain in applications, cloud services, and machine identities that are not subject to the same verification discipline.
Q: Why do service accounts and workload identities create so much least-privilege risk?
A: They usually outnumber human accounts, change more often, and are frequently granted broad access for convenience.
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.
Practitioner guidance
- Map standing privilege across all identity types Inventory human, workload, and service account access that remains valid after task completion.
- Separate connectivity controls from entitlement controls Use Zero Trust policy to govern network reachability, then apply a distinct runtime authorisation layer for what the identity can do once inside the resource boundary.
- Replace reusable privilege with task-scoped access Issue privileges only at the moment a task starts and revoke them automatically when the task completes.
What's in the full article
Britive's full blog post covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- How Britive frames runtime authorization for human, non-human, and agentic AI identities in practice
- The specific distinction between removing standing privilege and merely gating credential checkout
- The operational examples behind ZSP in cloud, database, and autonomous pipeline environments
- Britive's own implementation framing for pairing Zero Trust with privilege revocation
👉 Read Britive's analysis of Zero Trust and Zero Standing Privileges →
Zero trust and standing privilege: is your access model complete?
Explore further
Zero Trust without standing privilege removal is incomplete identity control. Zero Trust narrows the path to a resource, but it does not solve privilege persistence after arrival. That leaves cloud roles, service accounts, and workload credentials as the real blast-radius control point. Practitioners should treat connectivity as necessary but insufficient.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should security teams treat Zero Trust and JIT access as the same control?
A: No. Zero Trust governs whether an identity can connect to a resource, while JIT access governs whether privileged rights exist only when needed. The two controls are complementary, but neither replaces the other. If privilege remains standing, JIT has not removed the underlying exposure.
👉 Read our full editorial: Zero trust leaves a privilege gap that zero standing access must close