Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
09/06/2026 11:38 pm
TL;DR: The underlying issue is not visibility alone, but whether identity teams can turn findings into a usable remediation plan before privilege paths become attack paths; Netwrix’s on-demand learning lab focuses on Active Directory inventory, security reporting, permission analysis, and shadow access detection in Entra ID and AD, showing how overprivileged paths are identified and remediated in practice.
NHIMG editorial — here’s why we think this discussion matters
By the numbers:
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface.
- 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 find shadow access in Active Directory?
A: Security teams should trace effective access, not just explicit role membership.
Q: Why does Active Directory overprivilege remain a major risk in identity programmes?
A: Overprivilege remains risky because permissions outlive the business reasons that created them.
Practitioner guidance
- Map effective access paths, not just assigned roles Use directory inventory and permission graphs to trace inherited rights, nested group membership, delegated administration, and indirect access that creates shadow privilege.
- Prioritise remediation by privilege reach Rank findings by the accounts, groups, and objects they can touch, then remove the highest-impact paths first before broadening cleanup to lower-risk entitlements.
- Turn reports into owned remediation tickets Assign each risky access path to a control owner, set approval criteria for removal, and document rollback steps so remediation can proceed without operational ambiguity.
What to expect at the briefing
Netwrix's full on-demand webinar covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Step-by-step Active Directory inventory workflow showing what data the product collects and how to interpret it.
- Walkthrough of the security reports used to identify risky permissions and understand where shadow access exists.
- Demonstration of permission analysis for detecting attack paths across AD and Entra ID.
- Practical remediation planning guidance for reducing overprivileged access without breaking directory operations.
👉 Watch Netwrix's on-demand lab on Active Directory security controls and shadow access →
Shadow access in Active Directory: what IAM teams need to fix?
Explore further
10/06/2026 2:02 am
Shadow access is a governance failure, not a visibility feature gap. The article centres on identifying hidden and overprivileged Active Directory paths, but the deeper issue is that access exists beyond the organisation's operational awareness. When permissions can be inherited, nested, or indirectly delegated, teams are not managing explicit access anymore. The practitioner conclusion is that identity governance must measure effective privilege, not just assigned privilege.
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.
- 80% of identity breaches involved compromised non-human identities such as service accounts and API keys, which is why directory visibility has to extend beyond human accounts.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between visible access and effective access in AD?
A: Visible access is what appears in a role or group listing. Effective access is what a user, service account, or delegated admin can really do after inheritance, nesting, and ACLs are applied. Practitioners should govern effective access because that is the access path an attacker or insider can actually use.
👉 Read our full editorial: Active Directory shadow access is the hidden remediation gap
