Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
11/06/2026 11:55 pm
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
12/06/2026 8:50 am
Access review programmes fail when they are treated as governance rather than evidence. A user access review proves that someone looked at entitlements on a schedule, not that access stayed correct throughout the period. The article is right to separate compliance reassurance from actual control effectiveness. Practitioners should treat UAR as documentation of oversight, not as the engine of least privilege.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 91.6% of secrets remain valid five days after the targeted organisation is notified, showing a critical gap in remediation procedures, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which helps explain why point-in-time governance so often misses real access drift.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do organisations reduce access drift after a review cycle?
A: Link access governance to joiner, mover, and leaver workflows so entitlement changes happen when business status changes. Add continuous monitoring for sensitive applications, and route only high-risk or privileged access into manual certification. That creates a smaller manual workload and closes the gap between formal review and actual access state.
👉 Read our full editorial: User access reviews are only the start of effective IGA
