Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
12/06/2026 9:52 pm
TL;DR: Identity security posture management is becoming part of a broader Identity Visibility and Intelligence Platform category that unifies fragmented IAM data, quantifies risk, and ties findings to remediation and financial exposure, according to Axiad’s analysis. The shift matters because siloed tools still leave human and non-human identity risk partially invisible, and boards now need a single, defensible view of identity attack surface, with Gartner projecting 70% of CISOs will use IVIP by 2028.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Axiad: A CISO called us an ISPM vendor. Here's what we told him
By the numbers:
- Gartner projects that by 2028, 70% of CISOs will be using an IVIP to shrink their IAM attack surface.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams handle fragmented identity data across multiple IAM tools?
A: Security teams should treat fragmentation as a governance problem, not a reporting inconvenience.
Q: Why do machine identities need separate governance from human users?
A: Machine identities behave differently because they are deployed by systems, reused across environments, and often left with standing access after the original need has passed.
Q: What breaks when identity posture findings are not correlated across the stack?
A: What breaks is prioritisation.
Practitioner guidance
- Map identity sources into one correlation layer Inventory where identity data lives across IGA, PAM, ITDR, directories, SaaS platforms, and cloud systems.
- Establish ownership for every machine identity Assign accountable owners for service accounts, API keys, OAuth tokens, certificates, and cloud roles.
- Use risk scoring to prioritise remediation paths Rank identity findings by severity, prevalence, and likely blast radius before routing them into existing remediation workflows.
What's in the full article
Axiad's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- How Axiad positions IVIP versus ISPM in day-to-day identity operations
- The specific way Axiad Mesh scores identity risk and translates it into ALE
- Examples of identity data sources and integrations used to build a unified view
- How the platform ties visibility findings to remediation workflows and authentication controls
👉 Read Axiad's analysis of IVIP, ISPM, and identity risk visibility →
IVIP and ISPM: what this category shift means for IAM teams?
Explore further
13/06/2026 12:15 am
Identity visibility is now a governance requirement, not a reporting layer. When identity risk is split across IGA, PAM, ISPM, ITDR, and SaaS administration tools, no single control can explain the real attack surface. The operational consequence is that boards and security leaders receive fragments instead of evidence. Practitioners should treat unified visibility as the first governance control, not an optional analytics add-on.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 68% of organisations do not know how to fully address NHI risks, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own identity visibility and intelligence in an enterprise IAM programme?
A: Ownership should sit with the identity governance function, with clear input from security architecture, IAM operations, and the teams that run major identity systems. If nobody owns the unified view, each platform team optimises its own control and the organisation still lacks an answer to basic exposure questions.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity security posture management is expanding into IVIP
