Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
08/06/2026 4:07 pm
TL;DR: The Colonial Pipeline attack exposed how legacy authentication, weak password practices, and machine identity gaps can amplify disruption across critical infrastructure, while US policy responses signalled rising pressure to modernize controls, according to Axiad. The lesson is broader than one incident: identity programmes that still treat passwords and machine access as separate problems are underbuilt for operational risk.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Axiad: Future-Proof Authentication and the impact of the Colonial Pipeline attack
Questions worth separating out
A: Start with the systems whose access paths create the largest operational blast radius, then replace password-first access with stronger authentication that fits the environment.
Q: Why do passwords create such a large risk in operational environments?
A: Passwords are easy to steal, reuse, or intercept, so one compromised login can expose multiple systems.
A: Treat device identities as managed credentials with clear ownership, issuance, renewal, and revocation rules.
Practitioner guidance
- Retire password-only access paths Map every critical system where passwords still provide initial access and prioritise those paths for phishing-resistant MFA or equivalent stronger authentication.
- Classify machine identities as governed assets Assign explicit owners for device certificates, service certificates, and other machine credentials, then define issuance, renewal, revocation, and audit requirements.
- Modernize legacy authentication by system criticality Rank legacy systems by business impact, exposure, and supportability, then plan modernization in the order that reduces identity risk fastest.
What's in the full article
Axiad's full blog post covers the implementation detail this analysis intentionally leaves for the source:
- How Axiad positions multi-factor authentication across legacy and modern environments
- The article's discussion of machine identity management for IoT and operational technology systems
- Axiad's view on compliance pressure from NIST SP 800-171, CMMC, and emerging security requirements
- The specific cloud-based service model the vendor describes for managing authentication controls
👉 Read Axiad's analysis of the Colonial Pipeline attack and identity risk →
Colonial Pipeline and legacy authentication: what IAM teams missed?
Explore further
08/06/2026 5:34 pm
Legacy authentication in critical infrastructure is an identity governance problem, not just a modernization problem. The article shows how outdated systems become durable attack paths when controls cannot be refreshed as quickly as the business changes. That matters across human and machine identity because the same governance failure allows old access methods to survive as exceptions long after they stop being defensible. Practitioners should treat legacy authentication as a lifecycle issue with security impact, not as a narrow infrastructure constraint.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which shows how often machine identity ownership is still incomplete.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when machine identity controls fail in critical infrastructure?
A: Accountability should sit with the teams that own the device estate, the identity lifecycle, and the operational risk of the connected systems. Compliance frameworks can require stronger authentication, but governance only works when ownership is explicit and audit-ready. If no one owns revocation and trust decisions, the control will drift.
👉 Read our full editorial: Colonial Pipeline shows why critical infrastructure auth must modernize
