Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
06/07/2026 9:46 am
TL;DR: Most organisations struggle with access reviews because they cannot see all apps, decide what to scope first, or assign reviewers cleanly, according to Zluri. The real problem is not understanding why reviews matter, but building a review process that is complete enough to survive audit and remediation.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Security & Compliance User Access Review Process: 5 Key Steps
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should teams start an access review programme when they lack complete visibility?
A: Start with discovery, not certification.
Q: Why do access reviews fail when ownership is unclear?
A: Access reviews fail when no one knows who has authority to judge a specific entitlement.
Q: How do organisations know whether an access review is actually working?
A: An access review is working only if denied access is removed, exceptions are tracked, and the evidence package is complete.
Practitioner guidance
- Build the app inventory before launching certification Correlate IDP data, finance records, and department-owned app lists so the first review scope reflects actual usage, not just the system of record.
- Assign review authority by access class Route standard employee access to managers, privileged access to app owners or security, and third-party access to the team that can validate business need.
- Use group-level certification where access is grouped If SSO groups drive entitlement, review those groups first and reserve user-level review for privileged or exception access.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full blog post covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Week-by-week launch sequence for the first access review, including the 3 to 8 week rollout paths
- Concrete examples of how to choose between manual, basic automation, and platform-led certification workflows
- The article's practical review criteria for prioritising high-risk applications, users, and SSO groups
- Detailed remediation and documentation steps for closing out denials and preparing audit evidence
👉 Read Zluri's guide to launching a first access review process →
Access reviews in practice: what teams need to get right first?
Explore further
06/07/2026 10:02 am
Access review failure is usually a visibility failure first, not a reviewer failure. The article shows that teams often cannot even enumerate the full app population they need to review, which means the control starts with an incomplete risk universe. That matters because certification quality is capped by inventory quality. For IAM and IGA leaders, the practitioner conclusion is simple: if discovery is partial, the review is partial.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 72% of organisations have experienced or suspect they have experienced a breach of non-human identities, 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.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between reviewing users and reviewing groups in access governance?
A: User review checks individual accounts one by one, while group review certifies the entitlement sets that actually grant access. Group review is usually more efficient when organisations assign access through SSO groups, but it still requires strong ownership and remediation. User review remains necessary for privilege-heavy exceptions.
👉 Read our full editorial: Launching your first access review without losing control
