Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
06/06/2026 2:16 am
TL;DR: Segregation of duties in IAM prevents one user from accumulating conflicting permissions that let them request, approve, and execute sensitive actions, according to SecurEnds. The real risk is not just overprivilege, but control collapse when access reviews and role design fail to keep pace with role changes and temporary approvals.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by SecurEnds: Segregation of Duties in IAM
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams enforce segregation of duties in IAM?
A: Security teams should enforce segregation of duties by defining incompatible permission combinations, checking them during access requests, and monitoring for later drift.
Q: Why do users end up with conflicting access in IAM programmes?
A: Users usually accumulate conflicting access through role changes, temporary approvals, emergency exceptions, and manual grants that are never cleaned up.
Q: What breaks when segregation of duties is missing from privileged access?
A: When segregation of duties is missing from privileged access, the same administrator can create identities, assign elevated roles, and hide the evidence of what changed.
Practitioner guidance
- Map conflicting roles before you automate provisioning Start with finance, HR, admin, and payment workflows, then document which permissions cannot coexist in the same identity.
- Embed SoD checks into access request flows Use the IAM request path to evaluate existing entitlements against new requests before approval.
- Monitor for post-provisioning role drift Scan for manual grants, role edits, and integration-driven permissions that create conflicts after the initial request.
What's in the full article
SecurEnds' full guide covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Conflict examples across finance, HR, admin, and privileged workflows
- Step-by-step SoD matrix maintenance and exception handling
- Workflow design patterns for blocking or escalating risky access requests
- Dashboard and review workflow examples for audit evidence
👉 Read SecurEnds' guide on segregation of duties in IAM →
Segregation of duties in IAM: where access controls break down?
Explore further
06/06/2026 3:51 am
Segregation of duties fails when access is treated as a static assignment instead of a control relationship. The article describes the classic drift pattern: initial permissions are valid, then role changes and temporary approvals accumulate until one identity can complete a process end to end. That is not just overprivilege, it is the collapse of separation itself. The implication is that IAM governance must track permission combinations over time, not only entitlement counts.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 91.6% of secrets remain valid five days after the targeted organisation is notified, showing a critical gap in remediation procedures, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 79% of organisations have experienced secrets leaks, and 77% of those incidents resulted in tangible damage, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do access reviews help with segregation of duties?
A: Access reviews help by revealing conflicts that already exist, but they do not prevent those conflicts from being created. They work best when paired with preventive SoD checks in the request workflow. Used alone, reviews become a cleanup mechanism after privilege drift has already occurred.
👉 Read our full editorial: Segregation of duties in IAM is the control gap auditors flag
