Topic starter
17/08/2026 4:40 pm
TL;DR: Clarity Security says the Enterprise Access Model helps answer who should hold tier 0 and tier 1 access, but nested trusts, federated permissions and unmanaged application accounts can leave 30% of access outside typical controls. Identity governance fails when the programme cannot see the full access graph, not when the tiering concept is wrong.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Clarity Security: “Governance for Tier 0/1 Systems – Who should have access?”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when enterprise access tiers do not include nested and federated permissions?
A: Governance breaks when reviews only cover direct assignments and miss the access paths that actually confer control.
Q: Why do hidden trusts increase the risk of privileged access?
A: Hidden trusts expand effective privilege because they let one identity inherit or traverse access through another boundary without appearing as a simple role grant.
Q: How can teams tell whether tier 0 governance is actually working?
A: Tier 0 governance is working only if the team can identify every direct and indirect route to control-plane access, review it on a repeatable cycle, and revoke anything not justified by current duties.
Practitioner guidance
- Catalogue indirect privilege paths Map cross-forest trusts, federated access, nested access and cloud account linkages before recertifying tier 0 and tier 1 access.
- Review application-local accounts separately Include accounts that are not managed from the IdP, because they can hold standing access that never appears in standard identity governance workflows.
- Enforce time-bound elevated access Use privileged identity management for temporary tier 0 tasks and revoke access immediately after the task or incident ends.
Bottom line: Enterprise access tiering still helps, but governance breaks when trusts, nested permissions and unmanaged accounts sit outside the review boundary.
What's in the full article
Clarity Security's full analysis covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The full tier-by-tier access review guidance for Tier 0 administrators, PIM users and third-party vendors
- Examples of cross-forest, federated and nested access paths that teams should catalogue during governance work
- The article's recommended handling for application-local accounts that are not managed from the IdP
- The tier 1 governance patterns for RBAC, ABAC and separation of duties across business-critical systems
👉 Read Clarity Security's analysis of enterprise access model governance gaps in tier 0 and tier 1 →
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
17/08/2026 4:46 pm
Enterprise access tiering fails when the access graph is incomplete: The governance model is only as strong as the identities and trust paths it can actually see. Clarity Security's point is not that tier 0 and tier 1 are flawed concepts, but that invisible federation, nested grants and unmanaged accounts turn those tiers into a partial map. The practitioner conclusion is simple: treat discoverability as part of governance, not as a separate housekeeping task.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between tier 0 access and tier 1 access in governance terms?
A: Tier 0 protects the control plane that can alter identity and infrastructure at the highest level, while tier 1 covers business-critical systems such as ERP, finance and operational platforms. Tier 0 demands the tightest restriction and emergency-style handling; tier 1 needs broader role design, separation of duties and strong boundary enforcement.
👉 Read our full editorial: Enterprise access model governance gaps in tier 0 and tier 1