Topic starter
08/07/2026 6:58 pm
TL;DR: Access reviews only appear complete when they cover the systems already integrated into governance workflows; unintegrated apps, shadow IT, external identity environments, and local access remain invisible and unreviewed according to OpenIAM. The result is not mismanaged access but unmanaged access, so visibility, not review volume, becomes the decisive control boundary.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by OpenIAM: “Access Reviews Without System Coverage Create Governance Blind Spots”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when access reviews do not cover non-Microsoft systems?
A: The organisation certifies only part of the privilege picture and leaves root accounts, SaaS admins, and service principals outside the control loop.
Q: Why do incomplete access reviews create security risk?
A: Incomplete reviews create risk because governance can only act on what it sees.
Q: How can security teams tell whether access review coverage is actually complete?
A: Teams should compare the set of all access-bearing systems against the systems feeding certification workflows.
Practitioner guidance
- Define review scope by access source, not by campaign Build certification scope from a complete inventory of applications, directories, local systems, and external identity environments so review completion reflects actual access coverage.
- Onboard shadow IT and legacy systems into IGA Identify systems that hold permissions but do not currently feed the governance platform, then prioritise connectors for the applications with the largest or riskiest access footprints.
- Include privileged and non-workforce identities in certification Add service accounts, administrative accounts, partner users, and customer-facing identities to the same governance inventory used for workforce reviews.
Bottom line: Access review blind spots are created when governance scope is narrower than the access estate, leaving some permissions entirely outside certification.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
08/07/2026 7:20 pm
Access review completeness is a coverage problem, not a campaign problem. Organisations often equate a finished certification run with governance maturity, but the real control question is whether every access-bearing system was in scope. When review scope is narrower than the access estate, the process produces evidence of activity rather than evidence of coverage. The practitioner conclusion is simple: governance metrics must be built around visibility completeness, not campaign volume.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 96% of security operations teams report critical blind spots, most commonly in cloud infrastructure (74%) and identity and access behaviour (67%).
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should organisations govern shadow IT and local access in identity reviews?
A: They should bring shadow IT and locally managed permissions into the same control model as centrally administered access. That means identifying departmental tools, local accounts, and infrastructure-level permissions, then deciding whether each one can be integrated, mapped, or remediated into certification scope. If it cannot be seen, it cannot be governed.
👉 Read our full editorial: Access review coverage gaps create blind spots in identity governance