Topic starter
09/06/2026 11:29 pm
TL;DR: Privileged access management remains the first practical control for reducing abuse of privileged accounts, insider threats, and common attack paths, according to Netwrix’s webinar materials. For IAM teams, the real issue is not whether PAM exists, but whether it is deployed with lifecycle discipline, scope control, and clear zero trust boundaries.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Netwrix: “Privileged Access Management with Netwrix”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when least privilege is not enforced in a zero trust model?
A: The model stops containing blast radius.
Q: Why do privileged accounts increase insider threat risk so much?
A: Privileged accounts expand the amount of data, systems, and actions available to one identity.
Practitioner guidance
- Define privileged access boundaries Inventory which accounts, roles, and service paths count as privileged, then require PAM for those paths before expanding zero trust controls elsewhere.
- Remove standing administrative access Replace durable elevated entitlements with time-bound, task-scoped access so high-risk accounts are not continuously available for misuse.
- Separate deployment speed from governance depth If PAM is being rolled out quickly, make sure approval, review, and revocation rules still apply to the accounts that matter most.
Bottom line: Privileged access management matters because it is the point where elevated identity becomes a governed exception instead of a permanent entitlement.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 3 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
10/06/2026 1:49 am
PAM is no longer a standalone admin-control category; it is the enforcement layer that exposes whether zero trust is real or rhetorical. A zero trust programme that leaves standing privilege in place has accepted a permanent exception to its own model. That exception matters across human admins and non-human identities alike, because privilege without session discipline creates an always-on trust channel. The practitioner conclusion is simple: if privilege persists, zero trust is still aspirational.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Two-thirds of enterprises have endured a successful cyberattack resulting from compromised non-human identities, with a quarter encountering multiple attacks, according to The 2024 ESG Report: Managing Non-Human Identities.
- Enterprises that have experienced a compromised NHI averaged 2.7 separate incidents in the past 12 months, which shows that identity weakness often becomes recurring exposure rather than a single event.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own privileged access reviews?
A: Privileged access reviews should be owned jointly by identity governance, platform owners, and security operations. The review must cover human admins, service accounts, and other elevated non-human identities, because ownership failures are what allow standing privilege to survive role changes and offboarding.
👉 Read our full editorial: Privileged access management as a gateway to zero trust
12/06/2026 2:28 am
PAM is the first credible zero trust boundary because privilege is the part of identity most likely to create immediate blast radius. Zero trust only becomes operational when organisations stop treating elevated access as an ordinary entitlement and start treating it as a controlled exception. That is especially true for administrative and service access, where a single over-broad permission can become the shortest path to systemic compromise. Practitioner implication: define PAM as the point where trust becomes explicit, time-bound, and reviewable.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should security teams implement PAM as part of zero trust?
A: Security teams should treat PAM as a session-control layer, not just a vault. The practical goal is to make privileged access time-bounded, attributable, and separately reviewed from ordinary user access. That means tighter approvals, stronger monitoring, and fewer standing admin rights across both human and non-human identities.
👉 Read our full editorial: Privileged access management as a gateway to zero trust
This post was modified 3 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group