Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
12/06/2026 1:00 am
TL;DR: Audits must cover policy, access control, logging, offboarding, and compliance, according to Zluri’s IAM checklist, but its own examples show why non-human identities now sit inside the same governance perimeter as human access. The harder problem is not writing more checklist items, but proving that access is scoped, reviewed, and revoked consistently across service accounts, apps, and users.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Access Management 7-Step Identity And Access Management Checklist
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations include non-human identities in IAM audits?
A: They should treat service accounts, application credentials, API keys, and third-party access as first-class audit subjects.
Q: Why do IAM audits often miss overprivileged access?
A: They focus on assigned roles and policy documents instead of effective permissions.
Q: What breaks when offboarding does not cover non-human identities?
A: Tokens, keys, certificates, and app grants can remain valid even after the business process ends.
Practitioner guidance
- Expand audit scope to non-human identities Include service accounts, API access, application grants, and third-party access in every IAM review cycle so the audit reflects the real entitlement surface.
- Test effective privilege, not just assigned roles Compare actual permissions across cloud and SaaS systems with policy intent, then flag inherited or exception-based access that exceeds the intended task scope.
- Verify offboarding across downstream systems Confirm that revocation removes tokens, keys, certificates, and app grants in the systems where those credentials are actually used, not only in the primary IAM console.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Step-by-step guidance for building an IAM audit checklist around policy, access control, monitoring, and offboarding
- Operational examples of access review, MFA, and least-privilege controls across enterprise identities
- Workflow detail on onboarding, app approvals, periodic audits, and automated offboarding in an IAM programme
- The vendor's own breakdown of how its access management workflow is positioned for compliance and audit support
👉 Read Zluri's IAM checklist for audit, access control, and offboarding →
IAM audit checklists and NHI scope: what teams are missing?
Explore further
12/06/2026 10:37 am
IAM audits that stop at human accounts are structurally incomplete. Zluri’s checklist covers the familiar control set, but the article itself expands the access population to service accounts, applications, partners, and devices. That means the governing problem is not just employee IAM. It is whether the audit model can actually see and test non-human identities with the same discipline applied to users. Practitioners should treat the checklist as evidence that lifecycle scope, not checklist length, is the real measure of maturity.
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 13% of organisations feel extremely prepared for the reality of agentic AI despite the majority racing toward autonomous adoption.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when audit evidence shows access was not removed?
A: Accountability usually sits with the identity owner, the application owner, and the governance team together, because revocation failures often span multiple control boundaries. Frameworks such as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 expect clear ownership, repeatable control execution, and evidence that access decisions are enforced, not merely recorded.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity and access management audit checklists need NHI scope
