Topic starter
22/01/2026 2:56 pm
TL;DR: Just-in-time provisioning still creates temporary standing access, while just-in-time access evaluates context in real time and removes privilege when the session ends, according to SGNL. For NHI and IAM teams, the distinction determines whether Zero Standing Privilege is operational or only aspirational.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by SGNL: “Beyond the buzzwords: why JITA, not JITP, delivers true Zero Standing Privilege”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when just-in-time provisioning is treated as Zero Standing Privilege?
A: The model still creates an entitlement that can be used during its validity window, so privilege exists before revocation.
Q: Why does waiting for access approval increase incident risk in production environments?
A: Approval delays extend the time between detection and remediation, which can let outages, service degradation, or attacker activity continue unchecked.
Q: What are the signs that an access model is still leaving standing privilege?
A: Look for pre-provisioned accounts, assigned roles, time-boxed entitlements, and manual cleanup after access ends.
Practitioner guidance
- Differentiate JITP from JITA in policy language Write governance standards so temporary provisioning is not counted as Zero Standing Privilege unless access is granted only for the active session and removed when context changes.
- Shift approval logic to real-time context Require current identity, device, role, and business-need signals at access time so the entitlement is never pre-staged as a persistent role assignment.
- Remove post hoc cleanup as the primary control Treat delayed deprovisioning as a residual safety measure, not the mechanism that makes the access model secure.
Bottom line: The article separates temporary provisioning from true session-scoped access, and that distinction determines whether Zero Standing Privilege is real or only claimed.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 6 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
06/10/2026 9:04 pm
JITP is a time-limited standing-access model, not Zero Standing Privilege. The article is correct to separate temporary provisioning from session-scoped authorization. The governance mistake is treating a shorter-lived role as if it were a different security state. Practitioners should not confuse reduced exposure with eliminated exposure.
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 the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 59% of organisations say they lack viable alternatives to standing privileged access for NHIs and AI agents, according to Delinea research.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should teams design access controls so privilege disappears when the session ends?
A: Use real-time policy evaluation tied to identity, context, and business need, then grant only session-scoped access with immediate revocation on context change. The control objective is not just short duration but no persistent entitlement inheritance. That approach is the practical boundary between temporary provisioning and true zero standing privilege.
👉 Read our full editorial: JITA versus JITP: what zero standing privilege really requires