Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
07/06/2026 9:05 pm
TL;DR: Legacy PAM can add complexity, cost, fragmented workflows, and weak JIT adoption in modern hybrid environments, making access harder to govern rather than easier, according to StrongDM. For IAM and NHI teams, the real issue is not feature count but whether access controls can keep pace with cloud-era operational demands.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by StrongDM: CyberArk Privileged Access Management, 5 Critical Questions to Ask
By the numbers:
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams reduce standing privilege in hybrid environments?
A: Start by identifying where privileged access is still persistent across cloud, SaaS, on-premises, and hybrid systems.
Q: Why do fragmented PAM tools create governance risk?
A: Fragmented PAM tools create risk because the same privilege is governed through different workflows, review paths, and evidence sources.
Q: What do teams get wrong about just-in-time access?
A: Teams often treat JIT as a feature rollout instead of a lifecycle change.
Practitioner guidance
- Measure standing access persistence across environments Inventory where privileged access remains active after the task window closes, then compare that against intended JIT policy for cloud, SaaS, on-premises, and hybrid systems.
- Consolidate privileged access review paths Map every approval, session start, and revocation workflow to the actual admin plane in use, then eliminate duplicate review routes that create inconsistent evidence and audit gaps.
- Track JIT adoption as an operating metric Do not stop at configuration checks.
What's in the full article
StrongDM's full blog covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The side-by-side CyberArk question set used to frame a vendor migration conversation
- The access management positioning that explains why the article prefers a unified control plane
- The product-specific claims about deployment simplicity and licensing model
- The full JIT implementation argument as presented by the vendor
👉 Read StrongDM's CyberArk PAM comparison and access governance questions →
CyberArk PAM and the governance gaps teams keep running into?
Explore further
08/06/2026 8:52 am
Legacy PAM becomes a governance problem when it cannot keep pace with hybrid access. The article is not really about one product versus another, it is about whether privileged access can be governed across cloud, SaaS, on-premises, and hybrid estates without multiplying workflow friction. When access is split across tool-specific paths, review quality drops and operational exceptions become normal. Practitioners should read this as a warning that complexity itself is a control failure.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Our research also shows that 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, which is why access lifecycle discipline matters as much for machine identities as it does for human users.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do organisations know if privileged access governance is actually working?
A: Look for evidence that elevated access is requested, approved, used, and revoked consistently across systems. If approvals are bypassed, sessions linger, or different platforms produce different audit records, governance is not working. A healthy programme can show repeatable control execution and low exception rates without relying on manual intervention.
👉 Read our full editorial: CyberArk PAM creates complexity that slows modern access governance
