Topic starter
25/06/2026 12:51 am
TL;DR: Identity governance programmes can stall when rigid networks, VPNs, and firewall approvals prevent core applications from being connected, leaving systems outside oversight and audit coverage, according to Omada Identity. The connectivity problem is not operational trivia, it is a governance failure mode that turns Zero Trust and compliance goals into delayed outcomes.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Omada Identity: “Securing and Scaling Identity Governance with the Cloud Application Gateway”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when IGA platforms cannot connect to core applications?
A: Governance breaks at the point of coverage.
Q: Why do VPN-based connectivity patterns create governance risk for IGA?
A: VPNs restore reach by extending network trust, not by narrowing it.
Q: How should security teams evaluate whether gateway-based connectivity is working?
A: They should test whether the gateway can bring critical systems under governance without firewall exceptions, manual routing changes, or standing network access.
Practitioner guidance
- Define connectivity as a governance prerequisite List the applications, databases, and operational systems that must be reachable before access reviews, certifications, or provisioning workflows can operate at scale.
- Replace network-centric access paths with application-scoped paths For governed systems, avoid relying on broad VPN or subnet-level access where an application-level gateway can preserve tighter scope.
- Validate who owns the encryption keys Confirm that the connectivity layer preserves customer-controlled key ownership and that the enterprise can defend the trust boundary during audit.
Bottom line: Identity governance cannot deliver full oversight when connectivity to core systems depends on delayed network approvals and rigid VPN paths.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
25/06/2026 9:53 am
Connectivity is now part of the governance control surface: identity governance fails when the systems in scope cannot be connected on time, under control, and with defensible evidence. That is why network approval cycles, tunnel dependencies, and exception-driven access paths should be treated as governance blockers, not just infrastructure friction. The practitioner lesson is to define connectivity as a formal IGA prerequisite, not a downstream implementation task.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Nearly 60% of IT leaders cite restrictive cost and complexity as a weakness of legacy identity governance, according to the 2025 State of Identity Governance Report.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What governance decision should teams make before adopting a cloud application gateway?
A: Teams should decide whether connectivity will be measured as an architecture choice or as a governance control. If the answer is both, the design must preserve least-privilege access, customer-controlled keys, and auditable reach to every in-scope application.
👉 Read our full editorial: Cloud application gateways make IGA connectivity a governance issue