Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
24/06/2026 10:40 pm
TL;DR: CMMC 2.0 readiness for manufacturers often fails on routine access decisions rather than policy gaps, with shared accounts, inconsistent MFA, weak session handling, and broad privilege making CUI systems harder to defend and audit, according to Imprivata. The practical issue is that plant-floor workflows can quietly invalidate identity controls unless access is tied cleanly to individuals and actions.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Imprivata: compliance with CMMC 2.0 access control in manufacturing environments
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should manufacturers secure shared workstations that access CUI systems?
A: Manufacturers should treat shared workstations as high-risk identity enforcement points.
Q: Why do shared accounts create compliance problems in manufacturing environments?
A: Shared accounts make it difficult to prove who performed a specific action, which weakens both accountability and audit evidence.
Q: What breaks when MFA is deployed inconsistently across factory systems?
A: Inconsistent MFA creates a fragmented control surface where some access paths are protected and others are not.
Practitioner guidance
- Map every shared workstation to the CUI systems it can reach Trace each plant-floor endpoint to the applications and data stores it can access, then verify which users, shifts, and support roles are expected to use it.
- Standardise MFA across every access path Include remote support, legacy applications, and privileged workflows in the same authentication policy so an assessor does not find a protected path next to an unprotected one.
- Shorten session persistence on unattended shared endpoints Lock sessions quickly, force reauthentication after idle periods, and verify that handoffs between operators do not preserve the previous user’s privileges.
What's in the full article
Imprivata's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Checklist language aligned to CMMC 2.0 assessment expectations for manufacturers
- Workflow examples for shared workstations, operator handoffs, and session handling
- Access-control questions assessors are likely to ask about CUI-touching systems
- The vendor's own implementation framing for identity-first access in production environments
👉 Read Imprivata's guidance on CMMC 2.0 access control for manufacturers →
CMMC 2.0 and shared-workstation access control: what teams need to know?
Explore further
25/06/2026 7:28 am
Shared workstation access is the control boundary that CMMC 2.0 assessments expose first. The article shows that manufacturing does not fail on abstract policy language, it fails where identity meets production workflow. Shared logins, rotating operators, and active sessions across handoffs break the ability to tie activity to a specific person. That makes accountability fragile and audit evidence less credible. Practitioners should treat the workstation as the enforcement point, not just the account record.
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.
- Our research also shows that enterprises that have experienced a compromised NHI averaged 2.7 separate incidents in the past 12 months, which is a reminder that identity failures cluster rather than remain isolated.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Which access control gaps most often derail CMMC 2.0 readiness?
A: The most common gaps are weak session handling, shared credentials, uneven MFA enforcement, and excessive privilege that was never trimmed back after operational changes. Those issues matter because they affect both security and the ability to produce credible evidence. Readiness depends on controls that work in real workflows, not just in policy documents.
👉 Read our full editorial: CMMC 2.0 access control gaps are undermining manufacturing readiness
