Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
12/06/2026 9:02 pm
TL;DR: Third-party access remains a frequent breach path, and Zluri’s guide argues that vendor access management must combine least privilege, monitored sessions, and prompt revocation to reduce exposure, according to Zluri. The real issue is not access enablement but the governance gap between temporary collaboration and durable accountability.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Access Management Vendor Access Management: An Ultimate Guide
By the numbers:
- 80% of identity breaches involved compromised non-human identities such as service accounts and API keys.
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them.
- 96% of organisations store secrets outside of secrets managers in vulnerable locations including code, config files, and CI/CD tools.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams govern vendor access in production environments?
A: Security teams should treat vendor access as a privileged identity lifecycle, not a temporary convenience.
Q: Why do vendor accounts create more risk than ordinary user access?
A: Vendor accounts often combine elevated rights, weaker ownership, and inconsistent offboarding.
Q: What do teams get wrong about temporary third-party access?
A: Teams often assume that temporary access stays temporary after the business need changes.
Practitioner guidance
- Classify vendor access as a governed identity type Map external accounts, shared vendor credentials, and remote support sessions into the same governance inventory used for service accounts and other non-human identities.
- Eliminate shared vendor passwords Use brokering, managed credentials, or session-based access so third parties do not receive reusable standing secrets.
- Enforce revocation as a control, not a request Tie offboarding to contract expiry, ticket closure, and access recertification so access cannot persist by assumption.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full guide covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- A step-by-step explanation of vendor access management workflows for onboarding, approval, and termination.
- Operational examples of how Zluri frames managed credentials, session recording, and least-privilege controls.
- A breakdown of common vendor access challenges across devices, credential handling, and revocation.
- Implementation-oriented discussion of how the vendor positions unified governance inside broader IAM processes.
👉 Read Zluri's guide to vendor access management and third-party access controls →
Vendor access management: what IAM teams are missing?
Explore further
12/06/2026 10:51 pm
Vendor access management is really NHI governance by another name. The access pattern described in the article is not unique to vendors, because the same lifecycle and privilege problems appear in service accounts, API keys, and workload identities. The difference is organisational ownership, not technical nature. Practitioners should therefore manage external access as part of the broader non-human identity programme, not as a separate exception process.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 80% of identity breaches involved compromised non-human identities such as service accounts and API keys, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 96% of organisations store secrets outside of secrets managers in vulnerable locations including code, config files, and CI/CD tools.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should be accountable when vendor access is no longer needed?
A: The accountable owner should be the business or system owner who approved the access, not the vendor or an informal operations queue. Access should end only when that owner confirms the task is complete and the entitlement is revoked. Accountability must be explicit enough to audit.
👉 Read our full editorial: Vendor access management exposes the third-party identity gap
