Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
09/07/2026 3:23 pm
TL;DR: Identity remains the primary attack surface in Microsoft environments, with stolen credentials driving 31% of breaches and cloud account compromise affecting 46% of organisations, according to Verizon and Netwrix research. Native Entra ID controls are necessary, but hybrid visibility, audit retention, and privileged access still require additional governance layers.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Netwrix: 8 Entra ID security solutions to harden identity in 2026
By the numbers:
- 31% of breaches., ls were the initial access vector in 31% of breaches.
- Cloud account compromise affected 46% of organisations in 2025.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams govern hybrid Active Directory and Entra ID access?
A: They should treat hybrid identity as one attack surface, not two separate tools.
Q: Why do privileged identity controls still leave risk in Entra ID environments?
A: Because approval-gated activation does not remove standing privilege if sessions, tokens, or admin accounts remain live after access is granted.
Q: What do IAM teams get wrong about identity audit evidence?
A: They often assume event logs alone are enough.
Practitioner guidance
- Map the cross-plane attack path Inventory which identity events are visible in Entra ID, which remain only in on-premises Active Directory, and where correlation breaks during incident investigation.
- Separate role activation from privilege removal Review whether privileged workflows end with actual credential destruction or only with time-bound approval expiry.
- Extend audit retention beyond operational logs Confirm that your identity evidence can support SOX, HIPAA, PCI DSS, ISO 27001, or GDPR retention requirements without relying on short-lived native logs.
What's in the full article
Netwrix's full blog covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Tool-by-tool comparison of eight Entra ID security solutions across hybrid AD coverage, detection depth, and compliance evidence
- Specific product features such as continuous change auditing, inline blocking, rollback, and identity-to-data mapping
- Capability notes on Microsoft licensing, EAM integration, and where native Entra ID controls stop
- Practical selection guidance for teams deciding between posture management, ITDR, PAM, and audit evidence platforms
👉 Read Netwrix's comparison of eight Entra ID security solutions for hybrid estates →
Entra ID security solutions: is your hybrid identity stack enough?
Explore further
09/07/2026 3:42 pm
Hybrid identity governance fails when correlation stops at the directory boundary. The article shows that cloud-native controls are necessary but not sufficient when attacks move across on-premises Active Directory and Entra ID. That is a visibility problem, not just a tooling problem, because the control plane is split across two identity eras. Practitioners should treat cross-plane correlation as a governance requirement, not an optional integration.
A few things that frame the scale:
- From our research: 1 in 4 organisations are already investing in dedicated NHI security capabilities, with an additional 60% planning to do so within the next twelve months, according to the State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- Only 1.5 out of 10 organisations are highly confident in their ability to secure NHIs, compared with nearly 1 in 4 for securing human identities.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between identity monitoring and identity governance?
A: Identity monitoring detects activity and anomalies, while identity governance ensures the right access exists, is approved, and is removed on time. In hybrid Microsoft estates, both matter because visibility without lifecycle control still leaves privilege exposure and lifecycle control without evidence leaves audit gaps.
👉 Read our full editorial: Entra ID security solutions expose the hybrid identity gap
