Topic starter
12/02/2026 3:24 pm
TL;DR: Telecom rules such as the UK Telecommunications Security Act, NIS2, and Australia’s SOCI framework now require temporary privileged access, continuous monitoring, and full supplier visibility, yet many IAM and PAM programmes still cover only part of the environment, according to Hydden. The real compliance gap is not policy wording but incomplete identity discovery across legacy systems, cloud, and third parties.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Hydden: “How Identity Intelligence Drives Telecom Regulatory Compliance”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when telecom identity tools only cover part of the environment?
A: Compliance breaks because privileged access, supplier access and audit trails become incomplete.
Q: Why does telecom regulation make incomplete identity visibility a compliance risk?
A: Because the regulations described in the article require evidence over all privileged access, not just the subset managed inside one directory or PAM workflow.
Q: How do organisations know if PAM coverage is actually working?
A: They should look for fewer orphaned accounts, fewer ambiguous mappings, and fewer exceptions during onboarding.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory privileged access beyond directory-backed accounts Build a complete account and privilege map for network devices, legacy platforms, cloud services, DevOps tools and supplier-managed systems before relying on PAM coverage.
- Validate temporary access against actual ticket evidence Check that privileged access is time-bounded, tied to a specific purpose and supported by auditable ticket updates rather than assumed from policy language alone.
- Extend access reviews to unmanaged third-party paths Include vendor accounts, shared credentials and separate supplier identity stores in certification campaigns so offboarding and revocation decisions reach the systems where access actually lives.
Bottom line: Telecom regulation is pushing identity governance beyond the limits of directory-centric IAM and PAM coverage.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 1 day ago by NHI Mgmt Group
11/10/2026 1:29 am
Telecom regulation is now exposing the limits of partial identity visibility. The UK TSA, NIS2 and SOCI do not merely ask for access control in principle. They require proof that privileged access, supplier access and continuous monitoring extend across legacy and cloud estates that many identity programmes still do not fully see. The practitioner implication is blunt: compliance claims built on incomplete discovery will not survive scrutiny.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 92% of organisations expose NHIs to third parties, raising concerns about supply chain security, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should organisations govern third-party access to critical telecom systems?
A: They should treat supplier access as a governed identity domain with documented ownership, monitoring, revocation evidence and auditability. Shared responsibility models only work when access paths are discoverable and the organisation can prove that supplier privileges are limited, monitored and removed when no longer required.
👉 Read our full editorial: Telecom security regulation is exposing identity visibility gaps