Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
11/07/2026 1:59 pm
TL;DR: IAM reduces unauthorised access risk by tightening who can reach which resources, limiting privilege to need and duration, and improving visibility across remote, hybrid, and multi-user environments, according to Soffid. The governance issue is not the control idea itself, but whether identity, verification, recertification, and privileged access are managed coherently across the enterprise.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Soffid: Gestión de identidades en la empresa: cómo IAM reduce riesgos y simplifica la ciberseguridad
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams unify IAM controls across hybrid and cloud environments?
A: Start with one policy view for identity, entitlement, and revocation across every environment.
Q: Why do standing privileges increase risk in modern IAM programmes?
A: Standing privileges create a wide exposure window because access remains active even when the task, role, or project has changed.
Q: What do teams get wrong about access recertification?
A: They often treat recertification as proof of control when it is only useful if it leads to timely revocation.
Practitioner guidance
- Centralise entitlement visibility Build one view of current access across on-prem, cloud, partner, and workload identities so reviewers can see what exists before they certify or revoke it.
- Separate authentication from authorisation decisions Use MFA and SSO to improve authentication assurance, but keep privilege assignment and revocation under explicit access policy and review.
- Automate recertification with revocation outcomes Tie access reviews to actual removal of stale entitlements, not to approval workflows alone, and track how long revocation takes after a mismatch is found.
What's in the full article
Soffid's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- How Soffid describes the practical coordination of SSO, MFA, PAM, and recertification in one platform view.
- How the article frames support for hybrid, on-prem, and cloud environments in day-to-day IAM operations.
- How the source positions audit visibility, access logging, and controls for user experience in enterprise deployment.
- How Soffid presents its own service packaging and implementation approach for different organisation types.
👉 Read Soffid's article on enterprise IAM and reduced access risk →
IAM unification and access control gaps: what teams should watch?
Explore further
11/07/2026 2:09 pm
IAM fails when identity is treated as a collection of disconnected controls instead of a single governance layer. The article correctly points to provisioning, verification, authentication, and privilege management as separate functions, but organisations experience risk when those functions do not share one access lifecycle. That is why stale entitlements, inconsistent revocation, and blind spots across remote access become operational security failures. Practitioners should view access control as a continuous governance system, not a set of isolated features.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 19.6% of security professionals express strong confidence in their organisation's ability to securely manage non-human workload identities, according to The 2024 Non-Human Identity Security Report.
- 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.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should be included in identity governance beyond employees?
A: Identity governance should include contractors, partners, service accounts, application identities, and automation accounts. Any identity that can authenticate, request access, or hold privileges can create risk if it is not reviewed and revoked with the same discipline as human accounts. That is especially true in hybrid estates.
👉 Read our full editorial: Enterprise IAM reduces access risk when identity control is unified
