Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
06/06/2026 2:16 am
TL;DR: Segregation of duties conflicts arise when individually valid permissions combine to remove separation between action and approval, allowing errors or fraud to move through finance, HR, IAM, and privileged workflows without independent review, according to SecurEnds. The real issue is not missing policy but access growth outrunning control enforcement.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by SecurEnds: segregation of duties conflicts and toxic combinations
Questions worth separating out
Q: What breaks when SoD conflicts are not in place?
A: When segregation of duties is not enforced, one identity can complete a sensitive process from start to finish without independent review.
Q: Why do temporary access and role changes create SoD risk?
A: Temporary access and role changes are where overlap accumulates.
Q: How do security teams know if SoD controls are actually working?
A: SoD controls are working when conflict pairs are blocked during request and provisioning, and when certification reviews surface few surprises.
Practitioner guidance
- Build a living SoD conflict matrix Define incompatible action pairs for finance, HR, IAM, and privileged workflows, then update the matrix whenever processes or approvals change.
- Wire SoD checks into provisioning and certification Apply conflict checks during request approval, role assignment, and access recertification so toxic combinations are blocked before they are active.
- Prioritise high-risk systems first Start with ERP, HR, IAM, and privileged access platforms because they carry the highest impact when separation fails.
What's in the full article
SecurEnds' full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Step-by-step examples of common toxic combinations across finance, HR, IAM, and privileged workflows
- Practical guidance on building and maintaining an SoD conflict matrix inside your access governance process
- Workflow examples for access certification and remediation that show how to close violations without breaking operations
- A vendor walkthrough of how automated detection and alerts fit into SoD review operations
👉 Read SecurEnds' analysis of segregation of duties conflicts and toxic combinations →
Segregation of duties conflicts: the governance gap teams miss?
Explore further
06/06/2026 3:51 am
Toxic combinations are a process design failure, not an entitlement naming problem. The article shows that a permission can be valid in isolation and still become unsafe when paired with another step in the same workflow. That is a governance failure because the control boundary sits in the process, not the individual access grant. Practitioners should treat SoD as transaction design, not just role hygiene.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 91.6% of secrets remain valid five days after the targeted organisation is notified, which shows how slowly governance gaps can persist once they exist.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when a toxic combination leads to fraud or audit findings?
A: Accountability usually spans identity governance, application ownership, and the business process owner. The identity team defines and enforces the conflict rule, the application owner aligns access with the workflow, and the process owner decides whether a compensating control is acceptable until the overlap is removed.
👉 Read our full editorial: Segregation of duties conflicts: where identity controls break down
