Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 12:31 am
TL;DR: Manufacturing OT modernization, IT/OT convergence, and AI adoption are widening the attack surface, with identity now framed as the control point that protects operations, revenue, and safety according to Silverfort. The practical shift is to govern every human, non-human, and AI identity as part of an OT security blueprint rather than rely on isolated defenses.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Silverfort: OT security blueprint for manufacturing environments
By the numbers:
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation.
- 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 OT identities without disrupting production?
A: Treat OT identities as production assets with owners, purpose, and explicit scope.
Q: Why do non-human identities increase risk in OT environments?
A: NHIs in OT often sit close to configuration, maintenance, and remote access pathways.
Q: What is the difference between JIT access and simple access restriction in OT?
A: JIT access is temporary and task-scoped, so the privilege exists only when needed and only for the specific action being performed.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory every OT identity by purpose and owner Create a complete register of human, NHI, and AI identities tied to specific assets, business functions, and accountable owners.
- Convert privileged OT access to JIT and destination-bound controls Require time-bound access for remote and elevated actions, and bind each session to the exact destination or asset being serviced.
- Baseline normal behavior across human, NHI, and AI activity Track expected actions for each identity class and alert on role drift, unusual destinations, or maintenance agents accessing systems outside their assignment.
What's in the full article
Silverfort's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The phased OT Security Blueprint with practical sequencing for security and engineering teams
- The specific account policy patterns for human, non-human, and AI identities in manufacturing
- The recommended monitoring and response approach for OT-specific anomalies and rogue AI activity
- The blueprint's guidance on local account hardening, JIT access, and coordinated IT/OT response
👉 Read Silverfort's OT security blueprint for manufacturing identity resilience →
OT identity security blueprint: what IAM teams need to change?
Explore further
25/06/2026 9:27 am
OT identity governance is now a production resilience problem, not a back-office access issue. The article makes clear that ransomware, stolen credentials, and AI-driven attack surface expansion now affect uptime, safety, and revenue at the same time. In OT, the identity boundary is effectively the control boundary, so governance failures become operational failures. Practitioners should treat OT access as part of resilience design, not as an afterthought layered on top of production.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 91.6% of secrets remain valid five days after the targeted organisation is notified, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which means OT identity programmes usually start from partial knowledge rather than complete control.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should be accountable for OT identity governance?
A: Accountability should sit with both security and OT operations, because the control decisions affect production safety and uptime. Security can define the governance model, but OT teams must validate what is operationally feasible and approve how access is enabled, monitored, and revoked in live environments.
👉 Read our full editorial: OT identity security blueprint for modern manufacturing resilience
