Topic starter
02/09/2026 1:28 pm
TL;DR: Periodic access reviews were built for human-centric, single-application identity models, but Saviynt argues they miss cross-application risk, standing privilege, dormant access, NHIs, and AI agents because modern entitlements now change continuously across SaaS, cloud, and hybrid environments. The core issue is not review cadence but fragmented visibility that leaves systemic exposure unmeasured between certification cycles.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Saviynt: “Why Access Reviews Miss Application Risk”.
Key questions
Q: Why do periodic access reviews fail in modern identity environments?
A: Periodic reviews fail because access changes continuously while review cycles do not.
Q: Should organisations prioritise continuous monitoring over periodic certification?
A: They should treat certification as necessary but insufficient, then prioritise continuous monitoring for controls that can fail quickly, especially access, identity, and third-party dependencies.
Q: What are the signs that an access review process is failing in practice?
A: A failing access review process usually shows up as long approval cycles, overloaded reviewers, repeated manual preparation, and heavy engineering effort just to launch each campaign.
Practitioner guidance
- Build cross-application entitlement correlation Connect identity data across SaaS, cloud, and core business applications so reviewers can see SoD conflicts and toxic combinations before certification.
- Separate machine access from human review workflows Create governance paths for service accounts, API integrations, and AI agents that include ownership, usage context, and lifecycle tracking.
- Enrich access reviews with usage data Require reviewers to see whether access is active, dormant, or tied to sensitive business actions rather than relying on role names alone.
Bottom line: Traditional access reviews miss modern risk because entitlement visibility is fragmented across applications, clouds, and machine identities.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 4 days ago 2 times by NHI Mgmt Group
02/09/2026 1:30 pm
Access reviews are now a visibility problem before they are a certification problem. The modern stack spreads identity risk across SaaS, cloud, hybrid systems, and machine actors, so a clean result in one application can coexist with material exposure elsewhere. That means the governance failure sits upstream of review execution: if the programme cannot correlate access across environments, the certification result is structurally incomplete.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Over 70% of organisations lack automated access risk analysis, user access reviews and provisioning and deprovisioning, according to Pathlock's 2025 Digital Transformation and Access Risk Report.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should security teams govern AI agents and NHIs differently?
A: Security teams should govern NHIs as predictable machine identities and AI agents as runtime actors that can alter behaviour after authentication. That means static entitlements, inventory, and rotation remain central for NHIs, while agents need behaviour monitoring, delegation tracing, and ownership controls that account for tool choice and execution timing.
👉 Read our full editorial: Why access reviews miss modern identity risk across apps
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group