Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
12/06/2026 12:53 am
TL;DR: Entitlement management software is presented as a way to centralise access requests, reviews, provisioning, and audit reporting across user entitlements, according to Zluri. The governance issue is broader than tooling choice: identity teams still need lifecycle discipline, least-privilege enforcement, and reviewable controls that keep pace with role changes and shadow applications.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Security & Compliance Top 10 Entitlement Management Software
By the numbers:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
- 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 govern entitlement management across human users and NHIs?
A: Treat entitlement management as a lifecycle control, not just an access-granting tool.
Q: Why do entitlement tools still leave organisations exposed to over-privilege?
A: Because tools automate the model you give them.
Q: How do organisations know whether access reviews are actually working?
A: They should measure how many entitlements were revoked, corrected, or time-bounded after a review, not just whether the campaign closed on schedule.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory entitlements by identity type Map entitlements separately for human users, service accounts, and application-linked identities so ownership and review responsibility are clear.
- Tighten role design before expanding automation Review RBAC roles for excessive breadth, orphaned permissions, and exceptions that have become permanent.
- Bind access reviews to revocation Ensure every certification outcome can trigger removal in the source system, with an auditable record of who approved or denied access.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Feature-by-feature comparison of entitlement management functions across the listed tools
- Vendor-specific access review and provisioning workflows that implementation teams may want to evaluate in detail
- Per-tool customer ratings and product positioning that help with shortlist research
- Additional configuration and integration claims for SCIM, HRMS, and ITSM environments
👉 Read Zluri's entitlement management software overview →
Entitlement management software: what IAM teams need to fix?
Explore further
12/06/2026 10:24 am
Entitlement management is now a cross-domain governance problem, not a back-office admin function. The article treats entitlements as a user-access issue, but the same control surface now spans employees, service accounts, API-connected apps, and shadow software. That makes entitlement data a governance asset, not just an IT convenience. Practitioners should treat entitlement management as a programme-level control that must reconcile human IAM, NHI lifecycle, and audit evidence.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 91.6% of secrets remain valid five days after the targeted organisation is notified, showing a critical gap in remediation procedures.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between entitlement management and access provisioning?
A: Provisioning grants access, while entitlement management governs the full lifecycle of that access, including request, approval, review, and removal. A mature programme also tracks ownership and audit evidence so permissions remain explainable over time. Provisioning is a task; entitlement management is the control system around it.
👉 Read our full editorial: Entitlement management software exposes the gaps in identity governance
