Topic starter
24/06/2026 6:55 pm
TL;DR: Access drift persists when standing privilege, stale service identities, and weak certification loops are left to accumulate, as Avatier argues in its 2026 buyer's guide. Identity governance has to change entitlement state, or reviews stay paperwork and risky access survives between cycles.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Avatier: “9 Best Identity Governance and Administration (IGA) Solutions for 2026”.
Key questions
Q: Why do standing privileges create a higher access management risk?
A: Standing privileges increase risk because they remain available outside the task that justified them.
Q: How do organisations know whether access reviews are working?
A: Access reviews are working when they lead to timely removals, reduced exception volume, and role definitions that stop accumulating unused rights.
Q: What breaks when organisations rely on reporting alone instead of automated identity governance?
A: Reporting alone does not prevent risky access from persisting between review cycles.
Practitioner guidance
- Map governance debt by identity type Inventory standing privileges, stale entitlements, and unrotated service identities separately so the highest-risk gaps are visible before they become incident paths.
- Tie recertification to revocation Verify that every access review campaign ends in an enforced change, not just an audit artifact or spreadsheet export.
- Bind joiner-mover-leaver workflows to real HR events Check that role changes and leaver events trigger automatic entitlement changes across cloud, on-prem, and mainframe systems without manual handoff.
Bottom line: Identity governance is now positioned as the control layer that closes access drift rather than a back-office reporting function.
Glossary terms: Identity Governance and Administration (IGA), Access Certification, Joiner, Mover, Leaver Workflow, Standing Privilege
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 12 hours ago by NHI Mgmt Group
25/06/2026 3:57 am
IGA has shifted from compliance support to frontline control. The governance assumption that authentication is the main identity boundary no longer holds when attackers can live inside standing access and stale entitlements. In 2026, the question is not whether identities can sign in, but whether their access state is still defensible at runtime. Practitioners should treat IGA as part of the active control plane.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Nearly 60% of IT leaders cite restrictive cost and complexity as a weakness of legacy identity governance, according to the 2025 State of Identity Governance Report.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should security teams do when service identities are not clearly owned?
A: They should assign a human owner, define rotation and offboarding rules, and refuse to treat the account as a permanent technical dependency. Unowned service identities are a governance gap because no one is accountable for their lifespan, privileges, or decommissioning. Ownership is the first condition for control.
👉 Read our full editorial: IGA in 2026: the governance control layer security teams need