Topic starter
25/06/2026 1:07 am
TL;DR: Identity governance now sits inside resilience planning, with RSA Security noting that SOCI obligations require operators to show who had access, who changed it, and how that activity was logged. Critical infrastructure teams need audit-ready IAM and IGA evidence to support investigation, reporting, and service continuity.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by RSA Security: “SOCI Act 2018 IAM Obligations for Critical Infrastructure”.
Key questions
Q: Why do IAM and IGA matter for SOCI compliance?
A: They provide the access control, lifecycle governance, and audit evidence needed to satisfy risk management, incident reporting, and enhanced cybersecurity obligations.
Q: How do teams know if identity security controls are actually working?
A: Identity security controls are working when teams can show a current view of high-risk entitlements, detect privilege drift quickly, and remove access before exposure spreads.
A: Perimeter-only security fails once attackers gain a foothold through phishing, stolen credentials, vendor access, or exposed services.
Practitioner guidance
- Strengthen access control policies for critical systems Map critical asset access to explicit business roles, enforce least privilege, and review exceptions as part of the SOCI risk management program.
- Instrument identity logging for incident reporting Capture authentication events, privileged access changes, and access decisions in a form that incident responders can use immediately and auditors can reconstruct later.
- Automate identity lifecycle enforcement Link onboarding, role changes, and offboarding to IAM workflows so access removal and updates happen consistently across regulated environments.
Bottom line: Australia's critical infrastructure obligations now make identity governance part of resilience, not just access administration.
Glossary terms: Identity Evidence Readiness, Segregation of Duties, Role-Based Access Control, Identity Lifecycle Governance
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 1 day ago by NHI Mgmt Group
25/06/2026 10:19 am
Identity governance is becoming a resilience control for critical infrastructure. SOCI and ERP 2024 do more than raise compliance expectations. They turn IAM, IGA, and audit evidence into operational proof that a critical service can detect misuse, constrain privilege, and reconstruct events after an incident. For practitioners, that means identity governance is now part of national resilience design, not only access administration.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when identity evidence is missing during a SOCI incident?
A: Accountability usually sits with the teams that own access governance, logging, and incident response, but the broader obligation is organisational. For critical infrastructure, the business must be able to produce identity evidence fast enough to support reporting and investigation.
👉 Read our full editorial: SOCI makes identity evidence a resilience control for critical infrastructure
This post was modified 1 day ago by NHI Mgmt Group