Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
17/05/2026 9:55 am
TL;DR: Pathlock’s June 9 event focuses on modern IAM and GRC in hybrid environments, with cross-application access governance, continuous controls monitoring, and an AI-native transaction-first platform narrative framed around SAP plus Microsoft, Salesforce, and ServiceNow. The practical question is how much access governance can be standardised before manual control becomes the bottleneck.
NHIMG editorial — here’s why we think this discussion matters
By the numbers:
- 72% of organisations have experienced or suspect they have experienced a breach of non-human identities, with 46% confirmed and 26% suspected.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should teams govern access across hybrid IAM and GRC environments?
A: Start by linking entitlement data, approval workflows, and audit evidence across every system that can change business state.
Q: When does continuous controls monitoring matter most for IAM programs?
A: It matters most when access changes faster than review cycles, which is common in integrated enterprise environments.
Q: What is the difference between entitlement review and transaction-first governance?
A: Entitlement review checks whether a role or permission exists.
Practitioner guidance
- Map control ownership across applications Identify where SAP, Microsoft, Salesforce, and ServiceNow each store entitlements, approvals, and audit evidence, then assign a business owner for each control point.
- Instrument continuous controls monitoring for privileged paths Track changes in roles, approvals, exceptions, and high-risk transactions continuously rather than waiting for quarterly review evidence.
- Rework access recertification around transactions Ask reviewers to validate whether a granted entitlement still supports legitimate business activity, rather than only confirming that the role exists.
Teams should plan for broader evidence correlation and tighter exception handling?
👉 Register for Pathlock's Governance in Motion Lab on IAM and GRC →
Explore further
17/05/2026 9:55 am
Hybrid IAM and GRC is no longer a reporting problem, it is a runtime control problem. When access governance spans SAP and adjacent enterprise systems, the real failure mode is not missing policy language. It is the inability to keep access, transactions, and evidence aligned as the environment changes. Practitioners should treat governance as an operational control plane, not a quarterly attestation exercise.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 1.5 out of 10 organisations are highly confident in their ability to secure NHIs, compared to nearly 1 in 4 for securing human identities, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- 72% of organisations have experienced or suspect they have experienced a breach of non-human identities, according to The 2024 ESG Report: Managing Non-Human Identities.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should organisations treat non-human identities differently from human users in governance?
A: Yes. Non-human identities usually change faster, operate at higher volume, and are owned by systems rather than people. That means they need different review cadence, stronger lifecycle controls, and tighter evidence collection. A human-centric IAM process will miss much of the machine access risk.
👉 Read our full editorial: Governance in Motion Lab: IAM and GRC in hybrid environments
