Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
07/06/2026 9:20 pm
TL;DR: Manual user access reviews are failing at enterprise scale because spreadsheets, emails, and fragmented approvals cannot keep pace with rapid permission changes across cloud and SaaS environments, according to SecurEnds. The real shift is that review cadence, auditability, and privilege cleanup now need automation, or access governance will continue to lag behind identity risk.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by SecurEnds: user access review tools and automated access reviews in 2026
By the numbers:
- 65% of companies have faced compliance fines in the last three years due to weak access review processes.
- Over 40% of organizations still rely on fully manual reviews, despite the availability of automation tools.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams automate user access reviews without losing control?
A: Start by automating the highest-change environments, such as SaaS, cloud, and privileged systems.
Q: Why do manual access reviews fail in modern IAM programmes?
A: Manual reviews fail because access changes faster than people can reconcile approvals, exports, and audit evidence.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about privileged access reviews?
A: They often treat privileged reviews as a separate audit task instead of a higher-risk version of the same entitlement problem.
Practitioner guidance
- Automate high-change review cycles first Start with SaaS, cloud, and privileged systems where access changes most often.
- Tie reviews to roles and SoD rules Map review campaigns to role based access control and segregation of duties policies so reviewers validate meaningful exceptions instead of scanning every raw entitlement.
- Separate privileged reviews from standard access Give admin, finance, and other elevated accounts stricter review cadence, stronger approval thresholds, and a dedicated evidence trail for every decision.
What's in the full article
SecurEnds' full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Side-by-side comparison of the top 9 user access review tools and their deployment assumptions
- Case study specifics showing how automation reduced review time by 50% to 75% in named environments
- Implementation hurdles such as legacy system integration, staff resistance, and policy standardisation
- Feature-by-feature buying criteria for IAM, RBAC, SoD, and privileged access review support
👉 Read SecurEnds' analysis of automated user access review tools in 2026 →
User access review automation: are spreadsheets still enough?
Explore further
08/06/2026 9:15 am
Manual access review is a governance lag problem, not just an operational inconvenience. When permissions change faster than reviewers can certify them, the control stops describing reality and starts documenting stale state. That creates a false sense of oversight because the organisation can produce a review record without proving current entitlement accuracy. The practitioner conclusion is simple: recertification must track live access conditions, not past spreadsheet state.
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.
- That same research shows 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, which explains why review automation has to address entitlement scope as well as certification cadence.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when access review failures lead to audit findings?
A: Accountability usually sits with the identity, compliance, and system owners jointly, because review failure is both a governance and a control-implementation problem. Regulators expect proof that access was monitored, certified, and removed when no longer needed. The organisation must be able to show who approved what, when, and why.
👉 Read our full editorial: Automated user access reviews are now a compliance baseline
