Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 2:46 pm
TL;DR: Enterprises now run on cloud platforms, SaaS, bots, and automation, but many identity programmes still rely on manual reviews and fragmented controls, according to SafePaaS. The structural problem is that identity governance designed around human cadence cannot keep pace with non-human identity growth, lifecycle drift, and access creep.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by SafePaaS: platform-based identity governance and administration for modern enterprise environments
By the numbers:
- 85% of identities, including cloud service accounts and bots, are brought under governance within the first 30 days of deployment.
- Continuous privilege monitoring and automated lifecycle management cut excess access and orphaned accounts by an average of 70%.
- Organizations report onboarding critical applications and user groups up to 60% faster compared to legacy manual processes.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams govern non-human identities in complex enterprise environments?
A: Security teams should govern non-human identities through continuous inventory, ownership, entitlement review, and lifecycle offboarding, not through periodic spreadsheet checks.
Q: Why do service accounts and bots create more governance risk than many human accounts?
A: Service accounts and bots create more governance risk because they are often granted privileges for speed and left in place after the original use case changes.
Q: What do organisations get wrong about access reviews for non-human identities?
A: Organisations often assume access reviews alone are enough, but reviews cannot correct stale ownership, weak discovery, or missing deprovisioning logic.
Practitioner guidance
- Build continuous inventory for every identity type Track human users, service accounts, bots, and integration credentials in one governed inventory so ownership and access can be reconciled as systems change.
- Tie deprovisioning to lifecycle events Trigger access removal when projects end, integrations retire, or team ownership changes rather than waiting for quarterly certification cycles.
- Replace manual certification with exception-driven workflows Use automated access reviews for standard cases and reserve human review for conflicts, outliers, and high-risk entitlements that need judgment.
What's in the full article
SafePaaS's full analysis covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Detailed coverage of the platform approach for discovery and continuous inventory across human and non-human identities
- Operational examples of automated lifecycle management for onboarding, role change, and deprovisioning
- Implementation detail on exception-driven certification workflows and policy engines across SaaS, cloud, and on-prem systems
- Customer outcome examples showing how governance coverage and audit remediation improved after deployment
👉 Read SafePaaS's analysis of identity governance for modern enterprise sprawl →
NHI sprawl and access creep: what IAM teams need to know?
Explore further
25/06/2026 3:54 pm
Legacy IAM assumptions fail when identities outnumber people by an order of magnitude. The article describes a world where non-human identities routinely outnumber human users, yet governance processes still behave as if people are the dominant identity class. That is a structural mismatch, not a tooling inconvenience. Once machine identities become the majority, access review cadences, manual approvals, and spreadsheet reconciliation stop being control mechanisms and start becoming lag indicators.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 88.5% of organisations acknowledge that their non-human IAM practices lag behind or are merely on par with their human identity and access management efforts, according to The 2024 Non-Human Identity Security Report.
- Only 19.6% of security professionals express strong confidence in their organisation's ability to securely manage non-human workload identities, which shows how narrow the confidence base remains.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do IAM and IGA programmes adapt when automation becomes a core identity population?
A: IAM and IGA programmes need to treat automation accounts as governed identities with explicit owners, purpose, and retirement criteria. That means integrating discovery, access enforcement, and offboarding into one lifecycle model so machine identities do not sit outside the controls used for people. The programme should measure how quickly access can be corrected when business context changes.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity governance is failing to keep up with NHI sprawl
