Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
24/06/2026 10:27 pm
TL;DR: Password security benchmarking can help organisations compare maturity, but it also exposes how unevenly identity programmes manage authentication, privileged access, and governance signals, according to Netwrix. The real issue is not the score itself but whether teams can turn assessment results into sustained identity control improvement.
NHIMG editorial — here’s why we think this discussion matters
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations use password benchmarking results in IAM programmes?
A: Use benchmarking as a diagnostic, not a destination.
Q: Why do weak passwords matter more for privileged accounts?
A: Weak passwords matter more for privileged accounts because one compromised admin or service credential can open access to many systems, not just one user session.
Practitioner guidance
- Map benchmark gaps to specific identity controls Convert each assessment result into a named control owner, such as authentication policy, privileged access, or access review, so remediation is measurable rather than aspirational.
- Prioritise privileged identities first Review administrative and service credentials before broad user populations, because those identities create the largest impact if password hygiene fails.
- Tie password policy to lifecycle enforcement Use joiner-mover-leaver checks and recertification to prove that active credentials still belong to live identities with current business need.
What to expect at the briefing
Netwrix's full article covers the assessment and benchmark detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The actual benchmark workflow and what the assessment measures across password and identity controls
- The vendor's own framing for interpreting maturity scores in relation to broader security posture
- Any operational guidance on how teams can use the assessment output to prioritise remediation
- The surrounding product and resource context that sits around the on-demand webinar page
👉 Read Netwrix's password security benchmarking assessment details →
Password security benchmarking: what it means for IAM teams?
Explore further
25/06/2026 7:08 am
Password benchmarking is useful only when it exposes governance gaps, not when it is treated as a maturity score. A password assessment can tell you where policy exists, but it cannot show whether identity ownership, access review, and privileged offboarding are actually enforced. That makes the benchmark a diagnostic input, not a security outcome. Practitioners should use it to find control drift, then tie the findings back to lifecycle and privilege governance.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 79% of organisations have experienced secrets leaks, with 77% of these incidents resulting in tangible damage, according to the 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 the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own password governance when identity spans humans and non-human identities?
A: Ownership should sit with the identity programme, not just the help desk or endpoint team. Password governance affects human users, service accounts, and privileged access, so it needs shared accountability across IAM, PAM, and lifecycle governance. The key is to tie each credential to a business owner and an offboarding path.
👉 Read our full editorial: Password security benchmarking exposes wider identity maturity gaps
