Topic starter
25/06/2026 12:28 am
TL;DR: Identity security platforms should deliver shared services for audit, lifecycle, correlation, policy, automation, visibility, resilience, and cost efficiency, not just privileged access controls or secret rotation, according to Delinea. The core issue is whether products share one operating layer or remain disconnected tools that force manual work and inconsistent governance.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Delinea: “Part 1: How to evaluate an identity security platform: 10 questions that matter”.
Key questions
Q: How do you tell whether an identity security platform is actually a platform?
A: A real platform provides shared services that multiple products consume, including audit, lifecycle, policy, automation and correlation.
Q: Why does shared audit and correlation matter for identity security?
A: Because auditors and investigators need one coherent evidence trail, not separate exports from every product.
Q: What goes wrong when lifecycle management is handled product by product?
A: Provisioning drift, orphaned accounts and lingering permissions appear when each tool interprets joiner-mover-leaver events differently.
Practitioner guidance
- Demand a shared audit layer Require every product to publish into one centralised logging and audit service so compliance evidence and incident reconstruction do not depend on manual export stitching.
- Test lifecycle coherence across products Check that joiner-mover-leaver events trigger the same lifecycle logic for vault credentials, cloud entitlements and server logins instead of separate scripts per tool.
- Validate cross-domain correlation Confirm that identity actions from the IdP, vault, server and cloud are linked into a single investigative trail that analysts can search and replay.
Bottom line: The article argues that identity security should be judged by shared services, not by whether individual tools can enforce familiar controls in isolation.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
25/06/2026 9:23 am
Shared services are the real definition of a platform. Identity security products become a platform only when audit, lifecycle, policy, automation and visibility are consumed as common services rather than recreated in each tool. That matters because fragmented services force teams to reconcile inconsistent data and policy outcomes after the fact. The practitioner conclusion is simple: evaluate the operating layer, not the feature list.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should teams evaluate identity management platforms for lifecycle automation?
A: Start with mover-flow testing, not joiner-flow demos. The platform should handle promotions, contractor conversions, leave events, role reversions, and terminations while keeping approvals, entitlements, and audit logs consistent. If those transitions require manual cleanup, lifecycle automation is shallow and the governance model will not scale.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity security platforms need shared services, not siloed tools