Topic starter
06/06/2026 2:16 am
TL;DR: Segregation of duties is a preventive control that blocks conflicting access before it is granted, while user access reviews are detective controls that validate whether existing access still fits the role, according to SecurEnds. Treating them as interchangeable leaves audit gaps, stale access, and unresolved risk in governance cycles.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by SecurEnds: “Segregation of Duties vs User Access Reviews: What’s the Difference?”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when segregation of duties checks are handled outside the provisioning workflow?
A: When SoD checks sit outside provisioning, conflicts can be introduced before anyone notices, or approved later without full context.
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.
Q: How can teams tell whether access governance is actually working?
A: Look for short revocation times, low rates of stale entitlements, and repeatable access review outcomes across systems.
Practitioner guidance
- Embed SoD checks in provisioning workflows Evaluate every access request against conflict rules before approval so risky combinations are blocked at assignment time, not cleaned up later.
- Run evidence-backed user access reviews Assign each review to a named owner, capture the decision, and remove or recertify access immediately after the review outcome is recorded.
- Prioritise high-risk roles and privileged access Review finance, admin, and sensitive-data entitlements more frequently because those roles create the highest exposure when drift or conflict appears.
Bottom line: Segregation of duties and user access reviews solve different parts of the same access problem, so treating them as interchangeable weakens governance.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 23 hours ago by NHI Mgmt Group
06/06/2026 3:51 am
SoD and user access review fail in different places, so they cannot be substituted for one another: SoD is designed to stop a conflicting entitlement before it exists, while user access review is designed to challenge access that already exists. The governance error is treating prevention and recertification as equivalent because they both touch access records. Mature identity governance needs both lifecycle checkpoints, or it leaves either conflict risk or access drift unaddressed.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Over 70% of organisations lack automated access risk analysis, user access reviews and provisioning and deprovisioning, according to Pathlock's 2025 Digital Transformation and Access Risk Report.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should organisations do when SoD conflicts and stale access both appear in the same programme?
A: Treat the problems separately but govern them together. Fix the provisioning logic so conflicting access is blocked, then clean the existing population through access reviews and removal workflows. A combined model closes both the creation path and the drift path, which is the only durable way to reduce audit findings and operational risk.
👉 Read our full editorial: Segregation of duties vs user access review in identity governance
This post was modified 23 hours ago by NHI Mgmt Group