Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
03/06/2026 7:26 pm
TL;DR: SOC 2 compliance depends on controlling non-human identities because service accounts, API keys, and automation credentials often hold privileged access that can alter systems, expose data, or disrupt availability, according to Entro Security. The governance gap is not visibility alone: machine identities need lifecycle, privilege, and audit discipline built for non-human execution, not human access patterns.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Entro Security: NHI Management: A Key Element of SOC 2 Compliance
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams govern non-human identities for SOC 2 compliance?
A: Start by inventorying every service account, API key, token, certificate, and automation credential that can reach production systems or sensitive data.
Q: Why do non-human identities create more compliance risk than teams expect?
A: Because they often carry broad, durable access while operating outside the human review processes that organisations use for users.
Q: What breaks when service accounts are excluded from access reviews?
A: You lose confidence that machine access still matches business need, and you also lose the evidence needed to prove control effectiveness.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory every non-human identity in scope Build a register of service accounts, API keys, automation tools, and device credentials, then assign each one an owner, purpose, and business-criticality label.
- Reduce standing privilege for machine identities Remove broad or persistent access where possible, and split identities by function so a compromise cannot span backups, reporting, and administration.
- Automate secret rotation and revocation Use automated workflows to rotate credentials on a defined schedule and revoke unused secrets quickly, especially for integration accounts and API tokens.
What's in the full article
Entro Security's full blog covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Practical examples of how SOC 2 trust service principles map to machine identity controls in real environments
- Specific guidance on least privilege, rotation, monitoring, and compartmentalisation for non-human identities
- The article's own explanation of why automation credentials can create audit and availability exposure
- A fuller walkthrough of how the vendor frames NHI security as part of a broader compliance programme
👉 Read Entro Security's analysis of NHI management and SOC 2 compliance →
NHI management and SOC 2: what compliance teams are missing?
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services →
03/06/2026 7:30 pm
NHI governance breaks when compliance assumes identity risk is mainly human. SOC 2 programmes often centre on user access, but the article shows that service accounts and API keys can carry the same or greater operational blast radius. Controls that ignore machine identities leave a gap in security evidence, operational resilience, and accountability. Practitioners should treat non-human identities as core compliance objects, not edge cases.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 72% of organisations have experienced or suspect they have experienced a breach of non-human identities, according to The 2024 ESG Report: Managing Non-Human Identities.
- Enterprises that have experienced a compromised NHI averaged 2.7 separate incidents in the past 12 months, which shows that machine identity failures tend to recur rather than remain isolated.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between human IAM and non-human identity governance?
A: Human IAM focuses on people, while non-human identity governance focuses on software identities that authenticate, execute, and sometimes persist without direct interaction. The controls overlap, but NHI governance must emphasise lifecycle ownership, secret rotation, workload scope, and auditable machine-to-system activity.
👉 Read our full editorial: NHI management is a core SOC 2 compliance control
