Topic starter
25/06/2026 12:15 am
TL;DR: Zero Trust programmes can still leave a major gap when vendor and contractor access is not governed consistently, with only 36% of health IT leaders saying privileged access strategy is applied enterprise-wide, according to Imprivata and the Ponemon Institute. The control model is incomplete until third-party identities are brought into the same verification, least-privilege, and review discipline as internal users.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Imprivata: “Zero Trust Efforts Fall Short When Vendor Access Is Ignored”.
By the numbers:
- Only 36% of health IT leaders say their organizations have a privileged access strategy applied consistently enterprise-wide.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when vendor access sits outside zero trust governance?
A: Zero Trust breaks when third-party identities are treated as exceptions rather than governed participants.
Q: Why does third-party privileged access create so much risk in modern environments?
A: Third-party access is risky because external users often have less visibility, weaker oversight, and broader access than their role requires.
Q: How can security teams tell whether Zero Trust is applied consistently?
A: A consistent Zero Trust programme applies the same verification, least-privilege, and review logic to employees, contractors, and vendors.
Practitioner guidance
- Map third-party access paths Inventory every vendor and contractor route into production, including remote support, shared admin accounts, VPN access, and emergency access channels.
- Apply task-scoped privilege windows Grant vendor access only for the duration of a specific maintenance or support task, with explicit expiry and re-approval for extensions.
- Vault and rotate shared credentials Move vendor-facing secrets into a governed vault, avoid credential sharing where possible, and rotate any support or admin credentials immediately after use.
Bottom line: Vendor access is a Zero Trust problem when third-party identities sit outside the same governance model as internal users.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
25/06/2026 9:07 am
Vendor access is now a Zero Trust governance problem, not a perimeter exception. The control model fails when organisations verify employees continuously but leave third-party identities on separate approval, review, and entitlement paths. That split creates a blind spot in access governance that attackers and misconfigurations can both exploit. Practitioners should treat third-party identities as part of the same verification domain as internal users.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 74% of organizations report identity-related breaches, and privileged access is a leading cause of lateral movement.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should organisations prioritise vendor access controls or broader identity modernization first?
A: Organisations should prioritise vendor access controls when third parties already hold privileged or production access. That is where the immediate risk concentration sits, and it is also the place where MFA, credential vaulting, and task-scoped entitlement can reduce exposure quickly. Broader modernization matters, but unmanaged vendor access is a present-day governance gap.
👉 Read our full editorial: Zero trust fails when vendor access stays outside governance
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group