Notifications
Clear all
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.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Security & Compliance ISO 27001 vs 27002: 5 Key Differences
Questions worth separating out
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: Why do access reviews matter in ISO-aligned identity programmes?
A: Access reviews matter because they prove access is being checked against business need, not just granted once and forgotten.
Q: What do organisations get wrong about ISO 27002 implementation?
A: Many teams treat ISO 27002 as a substitute for governance when it is really implementation guidance.
Practitioner guidance
- Separate governance evidence from control execution Document ISO 27001 scope, risk decisions, and ownership separately from ISO 27002 control procedures so auditors can see both the management system and the operating evidence.
- Tie access reviews to remediation outcomes Record who reviewed access, what changed, and when revocation or restriction was completed so review activity produces measurable control results.
- Cover human and non-human identities in the same review model Extend periodic certification to service accounts, API keys, and workload identities, with owners named and renewal or removal actions tracked.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The article's step-by-step explanation of how ISO 27001 and ISO 27002 differ at the control and management-system levels
- The access review workflow example showing how approvals, restrictions, and revocations are handled in practice
- The article's own comparison table and decision guidance for choosing between the two standards
- The FAQ section defining ISMS, management standard, and supplementary standard in the vendor's framing
👉 Read Zluri's explanation of ISO 27001 versus ISO 27002 for identity governance teams →
ISO 27001 vs 27002: where access reviews fit in practice?
Explore further
12/06/2026 10:43 am
ISO 27001 and ISO 27002 split governance from execution, and that split is exactly what identity teams must preserve. ISO 27001 is about proving that the organisation has an information security management system with ownership, scope, and risk decisions. ISO 27002 is the implementation companion that helps teams turn those decisions into controls. The practitioner lesson is that policy maturity and control maturity are not the same thing.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 85% of organisations lack full visibility into third-party vendors connected via OAuth apps, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- Only 1.5 out of 10 organisations are highly confident in their ability to secure NHIs, compared to nearly 1 in 4 for securing human identities, according to the same research.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can teams show that identity controls are working for auditors?
A: Show the full trail from policy to review to remediation. Auditors need to see who approved access, when access was reviewed, what was removed or changed, and how exceptions were handled. Evidence is strongest when the same process covers human users and non-human identities with named owners.
👉 Read our full editorial: ISO 27001 vs 27002: what IAM teams should know about access reviews
