Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
02/06/2026 7:02 pm
TL;DR: IT application controls help systems process transactions accurately and completely, but many organisations still manage documentation, testing, and evidence through static spreadsheets and scattered files, according to SafePaaS. That manual layer weakens auditability and makes control assurance reactive rather than continuous.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by SafePaaS: IT application controls in enterprise environments and how to manage them
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams manage control evidence when applications change frequently?
A: Security teams should treat evidence as a governed asset, not an audit afterthought.
Q: When does manual control testing become too risky to rely on?
A: Manual testing becomes too risky when the control set is large, changes are frequent, or evidence is spread across emails and local files.
Q: What do teams get wrong about automation in control assurance?
A: Teams often assume automation solves the assurance problem by itself.
Practitioner guidance
- Centralise the control inventory Create one authoritative register for application controls, owners, risks, test frequency, and evidence location.
- Standardise evidence capture at the source Pull logs, workflow history, configuration snapshots, and report outputs directly from the system that runs the control.
- Test control operation continuously Move from audit-period sampling to recurring checks that verify the control still executes as designed.
Practitioners should expect audit requests to move closer to how identity teams already validate access reviews and exception handling?
👉 Read SafePaaS's article on IT application controls and audit evidence →
Explore further
02/06/2026 7:18 pm
IT application control sprawl creates a governance problem, not just an audit problem. When control descriptions, evidence, and ownership are scattered across documents and inboxes, assurance becomes dependent on memory and manual reconciliation. That is a brittle model for any enterprise that needs repeatable control attestation. Practitioners should treat control sprawl as an operational risk, not an administrative inconvenience.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 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 State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- Another finding from the same research shows that 85% of organisations lack full visibility into third-party vendors connected via OAuth apps, which is a control gap that often surfaces in shared evidence and delegated access reviews.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should organisations align IT application controls with identity governance?
A: Organisations should use the same governance discipline for both. That means clear ownership, approval trails, periodic review, and retention of evidence for changes that affect transactions or access. The point is to make control decisions traceable across application logic and non-human identity activity.
👉 Read our full editorial: IT application controls need centralized evidence, not audit-cycle spreadsheets
