Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
12/06/2026 1:22 am
TL;DR: Segregation of duties policy management depends on dynamic rule review, business ownership, agile remediation, identity risk analytics, and modern IGA workflows that keep access aligned as roles and applications change, according to Zluri. The governance problem is not policy existence but policy drift, where review cadence and entitlement sprawl outpace operational reality.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Security & Compliance 7 Strategies for Segregation of Duties Policy Management
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams implement segregation of duties in identity governance programmes?
A: Start by defining incompatible actions in business terms, then map those conflicts to entitlements, approvals, and lifecycle events across your core systems.
Q: Why do segregation of duties controls fail in modern SaaS environments?
A: They fail because access relationships change faster than manual governance can track them.
Q: What should organisations measure to know if SoD policy management is working?
A: Track policy drift, conflict resolution time, exception volume, and whether recertification results actually change access.
Practitioner guidance
- Rebuild SoD rules from current business processes Map incompatible duties against today’s application flows, approvals, and role structures, then retest after each merger, system rollout, or process redesign.
- Tie SoD checks to lifecycle events Trigger separation-of-duties validation during onboarding, role changes, access certification, and offboarding so conflicts are found when access changes, not months later.
- Connect analytics to case closure Route conflicting entitlements and high-risk access patterns into a workflow that assigns an owner, records the decision, and confirms removal or exception approval.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Step-by-step SoD policy management tactics for IT managers working across SaaS and IGA environments
- Examples of how to structure onboarding, access certification, and remediation workflows around SoD rules
- Platform-specific details on automated access review setup and workflow configuration
- Operational guidance on using an IGA platform to align role-based access with separation-of-duties controls
👉 Read Zluri's guide to seven strategies for segregation of duties policy management →
Segregation of duties policy management: what IAM teams miss?
Explore further
12/06/2026 11:15 am
Segregation of duties is now an identity governance control, not a policy document. The article correctly points to dynamic review, stakeholder ownership, remediation, analytics, training, and IGA as connected parts of the same control system. That is the real lesson for practitioners: SoD only works when it is embedded in entitlement lifecycle management, not when it is reviewed as a static compliance artefact. The practitioner conclusion is that SoD maturity should be measured by enforcement, not documentation.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 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.
- Two-thirds of enterprises have endured a successful cyberattack resulting from compromised non-human identities, with a quarter encountering multiple attacks, according to The 2024 ESG Report: Managing Non-Human Identities.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own segregation of duties decisions when business and IT disagree?
A: Business process owners should own the risk decision, while IAM and security teams provide the control design and enforcement. If ownership sits only with IT, the rules often miss the operational realities that created the conflict in the first place.
👉 Read our full editorial: Segregation of duties policy management for modern identity governance
