Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
24/06/2026 8:04 pm
TL;DR: Identity security controls for vaulting, rotation, certification, and ITDR depend on a complete, attributed inventory, yet non-human identities are often created outside authoritative systems and left uncorrelated across platforms, according to Hydden. Without continuous mapping and ownership attribution, downstream governance becomes incomplete by design.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Hydden: why NHI governance depends on complete identity inventory and attribution
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams build an authoritative inventory for non-human identities?
A: Start by collecting account-level data from every system that can create or store NHIs, then normalise that data into one identity model.
Q: Why do fragmented NHI records increase blast radius risk?
A: Because the same workload can be represented by multiple accounts and secrets across different systems, and each one may be governed separately or not at all.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about ownership for service accounts and tokens?
A: They often treat ownership as a manual label instead of a derived control.
Practitioner guidance
- Map every NHI across every identity store Include directories, cloud IAM, SaaS admin layers, legacy apps, databases, endpoints, and custom systems so discovery is account-level, not platform-limited.
- Correlate identity chains before setting policy Link service accounts, local accounts, API credentials, and keys that support the same workload so blast radius, rotation scope, and review scope are accurate.
- Derive ownership from evidence, not spreadsheets Use creation source, workload association, historical activity, and resource grouping to assign accountable owners for review and offboarding decisions.
What's in the full article
Hydden's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The account-level collection model used to pull identities from directories, cloud layers, legacy apps, and custom systems.
- How Hydden normalises schema differences so service accounts, local accounts, and cloud identities can be compared consistently.
- The way Hydden derives ownership from data correlation instead of manual assignment.
- How the platform feeds classified records into PAM, IGA, and incident response workflows.
👉 Read Hydden's analysis of why NHI governance depends on identity inventory →
NHI inventory gaps: why IAM controls break without attribution?
Explore further
25/06/2026 5:13 am
The identity stack is only as strong as the inventory beneath it. Vaulting, rotation, certification, and ITDR all assume the platform knows what identity it is protecting. When NHIs are created outside authoritative sources and spread across disconnected systems, the governance model starts from incomplete data. The practitioner conclusion is simple: NHI security is a data-foundation problem before it is a control problem.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 91% of former employee tokens remain active after offboarding, leaving organisations vulnerable to potential security breaches, according to The 2025 State of NHIs and Secrets in Cybersecurity.
- Our research also found that 44% of NHI tokens are exposed in the wild, being sent or stored over platforms like Teams, Jira tickets, Confluence pages, and code commits.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can organisations keep NHI governance current as environments change?
A: Use continuous mapping and reclassification rather than periodic snapshots. New integrations, deployments, and cloud changes create NHIs constantly, and accounts can be repurposed without formal lifecycle events. A continuous process ensures that classification, ownership, and review routing stay aligned with the environment instead of last quarter's assumptions.
👉 Read our full editorial: NHI governance fails without a complete identity inventory
