Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
08/06/2026 4:15 pm
TL;DR: Segregation of duties in accounting splits invoice entry, approval, payroll, and reconciliation so one person cannot control a transaction end to end, reducing fraud, error, and reporting risk, according to SecurEnds. The same control logic now matters across human IAM, NHI governance, and delegated workflows because role boundaries fail when review, approval, and execution collapse into one identity.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by SecurEnds: segregation of duties in accounting
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams implement segregation of duties in financial workflows?
A: Start by splitting initiation, approval, and reconciliation into separate roles, then enforce those boundaries with access policy rather than manual convention.
Q: Why does segregation of duties matter for IAM programmes beyond finance?
A: Because the core issue is concentrated authority, not accounting specifically.
Q: What breaks when one person can create and approve the same transaction?
A: Independent review breaks first, followed by auditability and fraud detection.
Practitioner guidance
- Map transaction paths end to end Identify every step in invoice, payroll, cash handling, and reconciliation workflows, then mark where the same identity can initiate, approve, and close the loop.
- Enforce dual control on sensitive transactions Require two separate approvals for high-value or exception-based actions, and make the second approval technically independent rather than a procedural rubber stamp.
- Rotate duties and test the boundary Move staff through approval, preparation, and review roles on a scheduled basis, then validate that access follows the role change and not the person.
What's in the full article
SecurEnds' full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Practical examples of how invoice entry, approval, payroll, and cash handling should be split across roles.
- Best-practice patterns for dual authorisation and role rotation in day-to-day finance teams.
- Simple explanations of the control logic that auditors expect to see in segregation of duties reviews.
- A plain-language recap of why SoD supports internal controls, reporting integrity, and fraud prevention.
👉 Read SecurEnds' guide to segregation of duties in accounting →
Segregation of duties in accounting: what controls teams still need?
Explore further
08/06/2026 5:47 pm
Segregation of duties is a governance boundary, not just an accounting rule. The article describes a classic control principle: one identity should not be able to create, approve, and reconcile the same transaction. That same principle defines strong human IAM and NHI governance, because assurance disappears when a single principal can both act and validate its own action. Practitioners should treat role separation as a control architecture, not a compliance checklist.
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.
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should organisations apply SoD principles to service accounts and automation?
A: Yes, if those identities can initiate business actions with financial or operational impact. Automation does not remove the need for separation. The same identity should not both trigger and approve a sensitive workflow, and the ownership model should make human accountability and system authority clearly distinct.
👉 Read our full editorial: Segregation of duties in accounting weakens fraud and error risk
