Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
16/09/2026 9:21 am
TL;DR: Hybrid PAM still breaks down when on-premises, cloud, and non-human privileges are governed through separate control models, according to Securden’s analysis. The practical problem is not just access sprawl but inconsistent policy, standing privilege, and weak lifecycle control across human and machine identities.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Securden: hybrid PAM strategy for on-premises and cloud identities
Questions worth separating out
Q: What breaks when hybrid PAM is split across separate cloud and on-premises control models?
A: Policy drift, inconsistent approvals, and uneven revocation are the usual failures.
Q: Why do standing administrator rights increase risk in cloud and remote access environments?
A: Standing rights expand the window for abuse because excess privilege remains available long after the original need passes.
Q: When should organisations extend PAM controls to non-human identities?
A: Organisations should extend PAM as soon as service accounts, API keys, certificates, or automation identities can perform privileged actions.
Practitioner guidance
- Define one privileged access control plane Inventory every privileged actor across Active Directory, cloud roles, local admin accounts, service identities, and vendor access, then map them to one policy model for approval, elevation, and audit.
- Remove standing privilege from high-risk paths Replace persistent administrative rights with just-in-time elevation for Tier 0 and other sensitive paths, and require automatic revocation when the task window closes.
- Bring non-human identities into PAM scope Add service accounts, automation credentials, hard-coded secrets, and AI agent access paths to the same inventory, ownership, and review process used for human admins.
What's in the full article
Securden's full analysis covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Step-by-step hybrid PAM implementation sequence from strategy to rollout across on-premises and cloud estates
- Specific discovery and classification workflow for privileged accounts, including Tier 0, Tier 1, and Tier 2 grouping
- Detailed examples of JIT access, session monitoring, and ticket-based approval integration in a live programme
- Platform coverage notes for Active Directory, Entra ID, AWS, Google Cloud, Linux, databases, and vendor access
👉 Read Securden's analysis of hybrid PAM for human and NHI access →
Hybrid PAM and NHI sprawl: what control plane do teams need?
Explore further
16/09/2026 9:22 am
Hybrid PAM fails when privilege is governed per platform instead of per actor. The article describes the exact failure mode many programmes still tolerate: different rules for cloud roles, directory groups, local admin rights, and service accounts. That creates policy drift, inconsistent revocation, and audit evidence that does not line up across the estate. The practitioner conclusion is simple: one control plane must govern the actor, not the platform.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 88.5% of organisations acknowledge that their non-human IAM practices lag behind or are merely on par with their human identity and access management efforts, according to The 2024 Non-Human Identity Security Report.
- Only 19.6% of security professionals express strong confidence in their organisation's ability to securely manage non-human workload identities.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do organisations know if PAM is actually working?
A: PAM is working when elevated access is temporary, sessions are observable, and revoked rights do not reappear outside approved workflows. If admin activity remains hard to attribute, if credentials persist after use, or if privileged accounts are missing from inventory, the control is only partial.
👉 Read our full editorial: Hybrid PAM needs one control plane for human and NHI access
