Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
06/07/2026 9:36 am
TL;DR: Gartner’s 2025 guidance on reducing IAM attack surface argues that visibility, observability, and remediation must work together because disconnected systems and weak oversight leave identity risk hidden across modern environments. The real issue is not discovery alone, but whether identity programmes can continuously explain, prioritise, and close exposure before it becomes access abuse.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Reduce Your IAM Attack Surface Using Visibility, Observability, and Remediation
By the numbers:
- Gartner Peer Insights content for Zluri is rated 4.7 based on 10 reviews as of 19th Nov 2025.
- Zluri reports that 216 IT leaders were surveyed on outsourcing needs during the pandemic.
- Zluri's SaaS Management Platform listing shows a 4.6 rating based on 26 ratings.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams reduce IAM attack surface in hybrid environments?
A: Start by building a complete inventory of identities, entitlements, and application connections across cloud and disconnected systems.
Q: Why do disconnected systems increase identity risk?
A: Disconnected systems break the link between discovery, policy, and enforcement.
Q: What do IAM teams get wrong about visibility tools?
A: They often assume that more inventory automatically means better security.
Practitioner guidance
- Unify identity inventory across all control planes Map users, service accounts, tokens, app connections, and disconnected systems into one governed inventory so exposure is not hidden in separate consoles.
- Separate visibility from observability in your programme design Do not treat a directory export or SaaS listing as sufficient.
- Create a remediation path for every discovered exposure Assign an owner, a closure SLA, and a revocation or restriction path for each risky identity finding.
What's in the full report
Zluri's full white paper covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- A breakdown of the IAM attack surface data sources that create visibility gaps across connected and disconnected systems.
- Zluri's framing of how IVIPs unify visibility across identity silos and why that matters for remediation workflows.
- The vendor's key recommendations for IAM leaders who need to reduce attack surface in practice.
- The report context around Zluri's identity governance and administration reviews and Gartner recognition.
👉 Read Zluri's white paper on reducing IAM attack surface with visibility and remediation →
IAM attack surface reduction: where visibility gaps still persist?
Explore further
06/07/2026 9:51 am
IAM attack surface reduction fails when identity visibility is treated as a reporting problem instead of a control problem. The article’s core message is that exposure lives in the seams between connected and disconnected systems, where inventory, privilege data, and governance data do not line up. That means the control failure is not just incomplete discovery, but a programme that cannot convert discovery into enforced scope. Practitioners should treat attack surface as an operational boundary, not a dashboard metric.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 70% of organisations grant AI systems more access than they would give a human employee performing the exact same job, according to The 2026 Infrastructure Identity Survey.
- Only 44% of organisations have implemented any policies to manage their AI agents, despite 92% agreeing that governing AI agents is critical to enterprise security.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do you know if IAM attack surface reduction is actually working?
A: You should see fewer unmanaged identities, shorter time to remove excessive access, and fewer high-risk connections left open after review. If discovery keeps rising but closure does not, the programme is documenting risk rather than reducing it.
👉 Read our full editorial: IAM attack surface reduction depends on visibility, observability, remediation
