Topic starter
01/07/2026 2:07 am
TL;DR: Identity incidents often begin with legitimate access, and Zluri argues that the real gap is full-lifecycle control across authentication, authorization, provisioning, reviews, and offboarding, with Microsoft reporting 600 million identity attacks per day and more than 99% password-based. The governance assumption that access stays stable long enough for manual review is breaking under real operating conditions.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Zluri: “Identity Security Solutions in 2026: A Candid Evaluation Guide for Security Leaders”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when identity governance is spread across too many vendor tools?
A: Lifecycle operations become inconsistent, audit trails become incomplete and deprovisioning becomes slower.
Q: Why do role changes create more risk than new joiner events?
A: Role changes are riskier because they often add new access without removing the old set.
Q: Why do access reviews often fail to reduce real risk?
A: Access reviews often fail when they produce evidence without changing the underlying entitlement state.
Practitioner guidance
- Rebuild the joiner-mover-leaver workflow Tie provisioning, entitlements, and deprovisioning to the same lifecycle event so role changes remove old access as well as add new access.
- Unify access requests and approvals Replace ad hoc requests in chat or email with a governed request path that records approval context before access is granted.
- Close offboarding residue Verify that leaver processes remove all app accounts and tokens, including non-human credentials that can still authenticate after HR offboarding.
Bottom line: Identity incidents often start with legitimate access and worsen when lifecycle controls are fragmented across separate tools and teams.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 3 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
01/07/2026 2:28 am
Identity security now lives or dies on lifecycle coherence, not on isolated control strength. Authentication, authorization, provisioning, reviews, and offboarding are only effective when they share the same state model. When each layer is owned separately, the programme can look mature while still leaving access active beyond its intended lifespan. The practitioner conclusion is simple: governance has to follow the identity through its full lifecycle, not just at sign-in.
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: Should organisations prioritise access governance before expanding automation?
A: Yes, because automation increases the speed at which access can be created, inherited, and forgotten. If governance is weak first, automation simply scales unmanaged privilege. Organisations should define ownership, review cadence, and revocation rules before allowing more automated provisioning.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity security solutions in 2026 need full-lifecycle control
This post was modified 3 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group