Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
24/06/2026 7:42 pm
TL;DR: Identity Security visibility remains fragmented across human and machine accounts, devices, applications, and local identity stores, according to Hydden, which positions identity attack surface management as an end-to-end way to discover and secure every identity everywhere. Traditional IAM, IGA, and PAM break down when organizations cannot continuously see how identities are used, where privilege sits, and whether compromise is already in motion.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Hydden: Identity Security is a complex, multi-dimensional problem
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams build continuous visibility across all identities?
A: They should start with discovery across every identity store, then normalize ownership, privilege, and usage evidence into one inventory.
Q: Why do traditional IAM and PAM controls miss identity attack surface risk?
A: Because they are usually implemented as separate control points rather than one integrated view of the identity estate.
Q: What breaks when identity governance lacks continuous discovery?
A: Review cycles certify outdated information, monitoring misses context, and remediation arrives after the identity state has already changed again.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory every identity store continuously Create a single identity discovery program that covers cloud apps, on-prem databases, laptops, edge devices, and OT or IoT systems.
- Separate managed from merely known identities Tag identities by owner, privilege level, system scope, and monitoring coverage so teams can see which accounts are only partially governed.
- Correlate identity state with usage evidence Join entitlement data to observed logins, privilege changes, and administrative activity so security teams can detect when an account’s real use no longer matches its intended role.
What's in the full article
Hydden's full post covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- How Hydden maps identity attack surface discovery across cloud, endpoint, and local identity stores.
- The platform workflow for continuous risk assessment and identity threat detection across disparate identity systems.
- Examples of how identity data is normalized to support investigation and response actions.
- Where the vendor places its capabilities between posture management and threat detection, including implementation context.
👉 Read Hydden's analysis of identity attack surface management and IAM visibility →
Identity attack surface management: what IAM teams are missing?
Explore further
25/06/2026 5:06 am
Identity attack surface is the missing governance lens for fragmented IAM estates. Security teams do not have an identity problem only at login, certification, or privilege elevation. They have a visibility problem across the entire estate, where the same identity may exist in directories, SaaS, local systems, and admin consoles with different owners and different evidence. The right unit of management is the reachable identity path, not the isolated account. Practitioners should treat identity attack surface as the control boundary, not the directory entry.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 1 in 4 organisations are already investing in dedicated NHI security capabilities, with an additional 60% planning to do so within the next twelve months, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- Only 1.5 out of 10 organisations are highly confident in their ability to secure NHIs, compared with nearly 1 in 4 for securing human identities.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do security teams decide whether an identity is truly governed?
A: They should ask whether the account has a named owner, clear privilege scope, usage visibility, and a response path if it behaves unexpectedly. If any of those are missing, the identity may exist in the directory but still sit outside practical governance.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity attack surface management reframes IAM visibility gaps
