Notifications
Clear all
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.
NHIMG editorial — here’s why we think this discussion matters
Questions 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.
Q: Why do privileged accounts increase breach impact so quickly?
A: Privileged accounts increase breach impact because one credential can unlock many systems, secrets, and administrative actions.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory every privileged identity Build a complete register of human admin accounts, service accounts, and other elevated non-human identities.
- Remove standing privilege where task-scoped access is possible Replace always-on administrative access with task-scoped elevation for routine operations.
- Tie PAM to lifecycle offboarding Connect privileged access review to joiner-mover-leaver processes so that admin rights, vault entries, and shared credentials are removed when roles or vendors change.
What to expect at the briefing
Netwrix's full webinar covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Live product demo showing how privileged access is secured and monitored in practice.
- Deployment tips for rolling out PAM quickly while keeping administrative workflows usable.
- Partner-focused messaging guidance for positioning PAM in zero trust conversations.
- A walkthrough of common privileged account risks and attack paths that supports sales and implementation planning.
👉 Watch Netwrix's on-demand webinar on privileged access management and zero trust →
Privileged access management for zero trust teams: what changes?
Explore further
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
