Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
24/06/2026 8:03 pm
TL;DR: As banks grow through cloud adoption, M&A, service-account sprawl, and automation, privileged access governance becomes harder to explain and evidence, leaving IGA and PAM coverage gaps that regulators care about, according to Hydden. The core problem is not whether access is intended to be governed, but whether governance can still be demonstrated continuously at scale.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Hydden: privileged access governance at banking scale
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should banks govern privileged access when cloud and M&A expand the identity estate?
A: Banks should move from periodic validation to continuous reconciliation.
Q: Why do service accounts create more privileged access risk than teams often expect?
A: Service accounts create risk because they are easy to over-provision, hard to explain, and often left outside the same review discipline applied to human users.
Q: What breaks when privileged access is managed through scripts and manual reconciliation?
A: Coverage becomes assumed rather than measured.
Practitioner guidance
- Move privileged access into continuous reconciliation Continuously compare discovered privileged identities against what is governed in PAM and IGA, then flag any drift with system, owner, and exception context.
- Classify service accounts as governed identities Assign ownership, purpose, expiry, and review cadence to service accounts and other non-human identities so they are not left to scripts or tribal knowledge.
- Replace informal exception handling with timed approvals Require documented exception workflows with an expiry date, approver, and revalidation trigger so temporary access does not become permanent by default.
What's in the full article
Hydden's full analysis covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- How its reconciliation model maps discovered privileged access back to existing PAM and secrets platforms
- The control evidence and audit-trail outputs banks would need for supervisory review
- How drift is classified when administrative access appears outside governed scope
- Why continuous discovery changes attestation quality across cloud and legacy estates
👉 Read Hydden's analysis of privileged access governance at banking scale →
Privileged access governance in banking: is your evidence complete?
Explore further
25/06/2026 5:11 am
Privileged access governance now fails at the level of evidence, not intent. Banks can intend to govern privileged access and still be unable to prove coverage once cloud estates, acquisitions, and automation expand the identity surface. The weak point is the gap between declared control scope and demonstrable control scope, which widens whenever access changes faster than reconciliation. Practitioners should treat evidence completeness as the real benchmark for governance maturity.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 1 in 4 organisations are already investing in dedicated NHI security capabilities, with an additional 60% planning to do so within the next twelve months, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- 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.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when privileged access cannot be fully evidenced?
A: Accountability sits with the control owners who are responsible for proving scope, ownership, and reviewability, not just claiming that the process exists. In regulated environments, auditors and supervisors expect continuous evidence that privileged access is complete and current. If that evidence cannot be produced, the control is not defensible, even if the policy is written.
👉 Read our full editorial: Privileged access governance is breaking under banking scale
