Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
12/06/2026 9:31 pm
TL;DR: IGA programmes fail when identity data, access reviews, lifecycle controls, and privilege governance are managed in silos, leaving security, compliance, and audit teams without a unified view of rights and entitlements, according to Zluri. The core issue is not the absence of tools but the assumption that fragmented governance can still control modern access sprawl.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Security & Compliance 8 Proven Best Practices To Optimize IGA
Questions worth separating out
Q: What breaks when IGA is not built on a central identity view?
A: Access review loses context when identities, roles, and entitlements are scattered across systems.
Q: Why do least-privilege controls fail in complex access environments?
A: They fail when elevated access becomes persistent, poorly scoped, or disconnected from task completion.
Q: How do organisations know whether access certification is actually working?
A: Certification is working when it finds stale access, conflicting roles, and unjustified entitlements quickly enough to drive removal or correction.
Practitioner guidance
- Centralise identity and entitlement data Build a single governance view across SaaS, directories, HR feeds, and admin systems so access review can use complete context instead of partial records.
- Tighten elevation around high-value assets Define which systems require continuous verification, short-lived elevation, and explicit revocation after task completion, especially for remote and cloud access.
- Automate certification and remediation workflows Use scheduled review cycles, fallback reviewers, and auto-remediation paths so access can be challenged and removed before stale privileges accumulate.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Step-by-step guidance on implementing centralised identity data management for IGA
- Practical examples of zero-trust access controls for high-value assets and remote work
- Workflow details for automating provisioning, deprovisioning, and access certification
- The article's own explanation of how Zluri maps apps, identities, and permissions
👉 Read Zluri's article on 8 proven best practices for IGA →
IGA best practices: where access governance still breaks down?
Explore further
12/06/2026 11:38 pm
Fragmented identity data is the real failure mode behind weak IGA. IGA best practices only work when user, role, entitlement, and app data are joined into one governance view. If access lives in separate tools and spreadsheets, certification becomes partial, revocation becomes delayed, and audit evidence becomes inconsistent. The practitioner conclusion is that governance maturity starts with identity data unification, not policy declarations.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Two-thirds of enterprises have endured a successful cyberattack resulting from compromised non-human identities, with a quarter encountering multiple attacks, according to The 2024 ESG Report: Managing Non-Human Identities.
- A separate finding shows that 85% of organisations lack full visibility into third-party vendors connected via OAuth apps, which is why governance gaps often begin outside the core IAM stack.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own segregation of duties when access spans apps and workflows?
A: Ownership should sit with the identity governance function, but enforcement needs input from application owners, risk teams, and audit stakeholders. The goal is to stop one identity from holding conflicting rights across a process, not just inside one system. SoD must be enforced across workflows, not only within a single application boundary.
👉 Read our full editorial: IGA best practices still fail when access governance is fragmented
