Topic starter
12/06/2026 1:04 am
TL;DR: ISO 27001 defines the requirements for an information security management system, while ISO 27002 provides implementation guidance for the controls, including access control and periodic review, according to Zluri. For IAM and governance teams, the practical distinction is between proving the system exists and showing the controls work consistently.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Zluri: “ISO 27001 vs 27002: 5 Key Differences”.
By the numbers:
- ISO 27001 Annex A contains 114 controls divided into 14 categories.
Key questions
Q: How should IAM teams use ISO 27001 and ISO 27002 together?
A: Use ISO 27001 to define the management system, risk scope, and accountability model, then use ISO 27002 to implement the controls that support those decisions.
Q: When do access reviews satisfy ISO expectations instead of just creating paperwork?
A: They satisfy the standard when they are linked to risk, target the right access populations, and produce evidence that access changed where it should have.
Q: Why do periodic access reviews leave organisations exposed?
A: Periodic reviews are snapshots, not continuous control.
Practitioner guidance
- Define the ISMS scope before building review workflows Map which business units, applications, and identity types fall inside the information security management system before choosing review cadence or reviewer groups.
- Separate control selection from control guidance Use ISO 27001 to decide which controls are required and ISO 27002 to define how those controls should be operated in practice.
- Risk-rank access reviews by sensitivity and privilege Prioritise privileged accounts, high-impact SaaS applications, and access that can affect sensitive data or production workflows.
Bottom line: ISO 27001 and ISO 27002 play different roles, and IAM teams need both the management-system view and the control-implementation view to make access reviews meaningful.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
12/06/2026 10:43 am
Access reviews are evidence controls, not just administrative tasks: The article correctly separates the standard that defines the management system from the standard that explains how to operate controls. For identity teams, that distinction matters because an access review only becomes governance evidence when it is repeatable, scoped, and recorded. The practitioner conclusion is simple: treat certification as proof of control operation, not a checkbox exercise.
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:
A: Use ISO 27001’s risk-based management requirement to decide how much of the guidance is appropriate for the environment. ISO 27002 informs the implementation pattern, but it does not override the organisation’s risk assessment or the need to scope controls sensibly.
👉 Read our full editorial: ISO 27001 vs 27002: what IAM teams should know about access reviews
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group