Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
21/08/2026 4:45 pm
TL;DR: Trust gaps, risk exposure, and prioritisation across access, authentication, and governance frame identity programmes, according to Ping Identity’s 2026 State of Trust Index, but the source excerpt provides no quantitative findings. For practitioners, the main signal is that identity trust is now a programme-level measure, not a point-in-time control.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Ping Identity: The 2026 State of Trust Index
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should teams measure identity governance maturity across human and non-human identities?
A: Start by measuring whether access decisions are discoverable, reviewable, and revocable across the full identity lifecycle.
Q: Why do non-human identities weaken trust programmes so quickly?
A: Because they are created fast, used silently, and often left in place after the original task ends.
Q: What should security teams prioritise before scaling identity security?
A: Security teams should prioritise identity data quality, standard access patterns, and clear ownership for lifecycle decisions.
Practitioner guidance
- Define identity trust metrics Set measurable indicators for authentication assurance, privilege scope, revocation speed, and stale access so trust can be reviewed as part of governance reporting.
- Fold NHIs into access reviews Treat service accounts, API keys, tokens, and certificates as reviewable identities in the same governance cadence as human and privileged access.
- Break down control silos Align IAM, IGA, PAM, and lifecycle ownership around one identity risk model so trust gaps are not hidden between teams.
What's in the full report
Ping Identity's full report covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Survey findings on where identity trust is strongest and where programmes expose avoidable gaps.
- The report's prioritisation guidance for teams deciding what to fix first in access and governance.
- Context on how practitioners should interpret trust gaps across access, authentication, and lifecycle control.
- The complete set of observations and recommendations behind the 2026 State of Trust Index.
👉 Read Ping Identity's 2026 State of Trust Index on identity trust gaps →
The 2026 State of Trust Index: what do identity teams do next?
Explore further
21/08/2026 5:05 pm
Identity trust is becoming a control outcome, not a branding phrase. Reports like this matter when they shift the conversation from authentication features to governance evidence. Organisations do not need more language about trust if they cannot show lifecycle, privilege, and revocation behaviour across identity populations. The practitioner conclusion is simple: trust has to be measurable before it can be defended.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 91.6% of secrets remain valid five days after the targeted organisation is notified, showing how slowly remediation can lag governance.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do IAM, IGA, and PAM teams avoid fragmented trust governance?
A: Use a shared identity risk model that covers authentication, entitlement management, privileged access, and offboarding. Fragmentation usually hides stale access and unclear ownership. A common governance model gives each team the same facts, which is the only practical way to keep identity trust from breaking at handoff points.
👉 Read our full editorial: Ping Identity’s 2026 State of Trust Index and identity risk
