Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
05/07/2026 10:43 pm
TL;DR: Identity security has not kept pace with cloud, SaaS, third-party integrations, and real-time access changes, leaving periodic certifications and fragmented visibility unable to govern modern enterprises effectively, according to Linx Security. The core issue is not a lack of attention, but a governance model built for static access assumptions that no longer hold.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Linx Security: Following My Passion: Joining Linx Security as CTO to Evolve Identity Security
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams govern identity when access changes continuously?
A: Security teams should move from periodic certification to continuous identity governance.
Q: Why do scattered identity systems create governance risk?
A: Scattered identity systems create governance risk because no single source can explain effective access across cloud, SaaS, PAM, and third-party integrations.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about access certifications?
A: Teams often treat access certification as the control itself rather than one evidence point within governance.
Practitioner guidance
- Replace review-only governance with continuous visibility Map identities, entitlements, and usage signals continuously across SaaS, cloud, PAM, and third-party integrations.
- Unify human and non-human identity inventories Create one authoritative view that includes users, service accounts, API keys, tokens, certificates, and delegated third-party access.
- Prioritise real-time risk signals over static attestations Weight live usage, privilege elevation, and anomalous access more heavily than stale approvals.
What's in the full article
Linx Security's full blog post covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- How the vendor maps identity risk across SaaS, cloud workloads, privileged accounts, and third-party integrations.
- The platform workflow for continuous monitoring and mitigation of identity risk in real time.
- The company’s framing of how identity intelligence is applied across the identity lifecycle.
- The webinar and demo paths referenced in the post for teams evaluating a continuous governance approach.
👉 Read Linx Security's blog post on evolving identity security for modern enterprises →
Identity security is still behind the access patterns teams run today?
Explore further
05/07/2026 10:46 pm
Static identity governance is the wrong control model for modern access. The article’s central claim is that periodic certification and manual review were built for an era when identity changed slowly and lived inside a bounded perimeter. That assumption no longer holds in SaaS, cloud, and third-party-heavy environments, where access paths shift faster than governance cycles can observe them. The implication is that identity programmes have to treat time, not just privilege, as a control variable.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them, which shows how often identity governance fails at lifecycle closure.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do organisations know whether identity governance is actually working?
A: Identity governance is working when the programme can identify stale access quickly, reconcile entitlements across systems, and revoke unnecessary privilege before it is abused. If the only proof is a completed review cycle, the control is reporting activity, not reducing exposure.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity security’s governance gap is still built for static access
