User access reviews are not enough for IGA governance

TL;DR: User access reviews are a useful compliance starting point, but Zluri argues they cannot deliver continuous governance because access changes between review cycles, coverage often stays limited to a few apps, and manual review alone cannot sustain least privilege across modern environments. The real control problem is lifecycle and monitoring, not periodic certification.

NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Access Management You Just Implemented Your Access Reviews. What's Next?

Questions worth separating out

Q: How should security teams use access reviews without overrelying on them?

A: Treat access reviews as a validation step, not the core governance mechanism.

Q: Why do access reviews fail to guarantee least privilege?

A: They fail because least privilege is a moving target, while reviews are typically periodic.

Q: What do security teams get wrong about user access reviews?

A: The most common mistake is treating successful completion as proof of effective governance.

Practitioner guidance

• Reclassify access reviews as a control checkpoint Use UAR to validate high-risk entitlements, but do not treat completion rates as proof of continuous governance.
• Expand review coverage beyond compliance scope Map every SaaS, cloud, and business application that can create material access risk, then phase them into the review programme.
• Connect JML events to automated access changes Integrate joiner, mover, and leaver triggers with provisioning and deprovisioning workflows so entitlement state changes when employment status changes.

What's in the full article

Zluri's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:

• How the user access review workflow is typically structured inside an IGA programme and where teams usually start
• The specific limits of point-in-time review cadence for compliance-heavy environments such as SOX and HIPAA
• How automated provisioning, deprovisioning, and lifecycle events reduce manual review burden in practice
• Why risk-based or event-driven reviews are more effective for privileged access than blanket recertification

👉 Read Zluri's analysis of why user access reviews are only the start of IGA →

User access reviews are not enough for IGA governance?

Explore further

View Full Forum →  |  NHI Foundation Course →