Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
12/06/2026 1:25 am
TL;DR: SOX Section 302 requires senior executives to certify disclosure controls, review internal controls, and confirm the accuracy of financial reporting, while the article notes disclosure committees must also examine access, breaches, and other material developments according to Zluri. The governance challenge is that manual certification can still miss who actually had access, when it changed, and whether the control was operational.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: What Is Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) 302?
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations evidence access control for SOX 302 certification?
A: They should map each certification assertion to identity evidence, including access reviews, privileged access logs, and revocation records.
Q: Why do access reviews matter for SOX 302 compliance?
A: Access reviews matter because SOX 302 depends on executives certifying that disclosure controls are accurate and complete.
Q: What breaks when disclosure committees do not have identity data?
A: What breaks is the ability to verify who had access, who approved exceptions, and whether the controls were active before certification.
Practitioner guidance
- Map certification evidence to identity controls Link each SOX 302 sign-off requirement to a specific IAM, IGA, or PAM evidence source so reviewers can prove who had access, who approved changes, and when revocations were completed.
- Operationalise quarterly access reviews before filing windows Schedule access certification early enough to resolve exceptions before 10-Q or 10-K disclosure decisions, and preserve the approval trail for audit retrieval.
- Track privileged access separately from standard entitlements Keep privileged financial-system access under a distinct review path so elevated rights are not hidden inside broad user recertification cycles.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full blog post covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Step-by-step SOX 302 certification workflow and committee responsibilities
- Specific differences between SOX 302 and SOX 404 in disclosure and internal control testing
- How Zluri positions access review automation for Microsoft 365 in the compliance process
- The article's checklist-style FAQs on disclosure committees and de-SPAC obligations
👉 Read Zluri's SOX 302 guide on disclosure controls and executive certification →
SOX 302 and access reviews: where governance still breaks down?
Explore further
12/06/2026 11:20 am
SOX 302 turns identity evidence into a financial-reporting control, not an IT hygiene task. The article centres executive certification, but the control environment it depends on is identity governance. Access reviews, privileged access evidence, and revocation records become part of the disclosure chain because they support the truthfulness of the certification. Practitioners should treat IAM and IGA outputs as audit evidence with legal weight, not administrative output.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 85% of organisations lack full visibility into third-party vendors connected via OAuth apps, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- Only 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.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when access evidence is incomplete under SOX 302?
A: Accountability sits with senior management for the certification, but operational ownership should be assigned to the teams holding access logs, review records, and revocation workflows. Finance and legal cannot certify what IAM and PAM have not evidenced. The practical answer is shared accountability with explicit evidence owners.
👉 Read our full editorial: SOX 302 exposes the limits of manual access review controls
