Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 3:14 pm
TL;DR: Traditional IAM boundaries are breaking down faster than many programmes can reconcile, with KuppingerCole naming CyberArk an Overall Leader in its 2025 Identity Fabrics compass and highlighting a shift away from identity silos toward connected governance across workforce, developer, IT, machine, and AI access in complex enterprises.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by CyberArk: report recognition for modern identity security and identity fabrics
By the numbers:
- 96% of organisations store secrets outside of secrets managers in vulnerable locations including code, config files, and CI/CD tools.
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams govern identity fabrics across human, machine, and AI access?
A: Treat identity fabric design as a governance model, not a tool replacement.
Q: Why do identity silos create risk in multi-cloud IAM programmes?
A: Identity silos create risk because access decisions become inconsistent across cloud platforms, applications, and privilege layers.
Q: What breaks when privileged access is managed separately from lifecycle governance?
A: When privileged access and lifecycle governance are separated, access can outlive the business need that created it.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory identity silos across actor types Map where workforce, developer, machine, and AI identities are governed in separate tools or processes.
- Reconcile PAM and IGA workflows Check whether privileged access approvals, entitlement reviews, and lifecycle events are tied together or handled as disconnected workflows.
- Classify machine and AI access as governance scope, not exceptions Update your IAM operating model so service accounts, API keys, and AI-driven access are reviewed in the same governance language as human access.
What's in the full analysis
CyberArk's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The analyst report context behind the Overall Leader recognition and the evaluation criteria used for identity fabrics
- The platform capability breakdown across IGA, PAM, access management, and machine identity control
- The specific multi-cloud provisioning and dynamic privilege control capabilities referenced in the announcement
- The original analyst commentary and report download context for practitioners who need the source material
👉 Read CyberArk's analysis of identity fabrics and modern identity security →
Identity fabrics and unified access control: what changes for IAM teams?
Explore further
25/06/2026 4:39 pm
Identity fabrics are becoming the coordination layer IAM programmes already needed. The article reflects a structural shift away from single-purpose identity tools toward control models that connect governance, access, and privilege across identity classes. That shift matters because most enterprise risk now lives in the handoffs between systems rather than inside any one control domain. Practitioners should treat identity fabric thinking as a governance architecture question, not a product-category label.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, which broadens the attack surface and makes unified privilege governance a core design issue.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do IAM teams know whether their identity fabric is working?
A: Look for fewer disconnected approvals, fewer unmanaged delegated access paths, and clearer ownership across identity types. If workforce, machine, and AI access still require different control logic just to answer basic audit questions, the fabric is not yet functioning as a unified governance layer.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity fabrics are becoming the new control plane for modern access
