Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
12/06/2026 1:14 am
TL;DR: Shared IT service accounts can improve continuity and collaboration in SaaS operations, but they also weaken MFA, auditability, and offboarding discipline when the same credentials are reused across multiple users, according to Zluri. Shared access only remains defensible when identity, rotation, and accountability controls are designed for the account, not the team.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: IT teams unveiling the pros and cons of shared IT service accounts to manage your SaaS
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams govern shared IT service accounts in SaaS environments?
A: Treat shared service accounts as high-risk NHIs with explicit ownership, rotation, and revocation rules.
Q: Why do shared service accounts weaken accountability in IAM programmes?
A: They weaken accountability because logs point to the account, not the person using it.
Q: What breaks when shared passwords are used for privileged SaaS access?
A: The main failure is blast-radius control.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory every shared service account in SaaS administration Map which teams use each account, what permissions it holds, and whether it is still needed for operational continuity.
- Separate operator identity from shared account access Require each administrator to authenticate with an individual identity before using a shared credential or privileged session.
- Remove password reuse as the default operating model Rotate shared passwords on a defined schedule, but also reduce the number of places where the credential can be used.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full blog post covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- How the platform centralises access, permissions, and credentials for shared accounts across SaaS tools
- How password rotation and audit trail features are positioned for teams managing shared service accounts
- How the vendor frames provisioning and licensing efficiency for organisations trying to reduce duplicate accounts
👉 Read Zluri's analysis of shared IT service account risks in SaaS →
Shared IT service accounts: the governance gap teams are missing?
Explore further
12/06/2026 11:02 am
Shared IT service accounts create an accountability gap, not just an access convenience. The article correctly identifies continuity and collaboration benefits, but those gains come from removing individual identity from the access model. Once several people operate through one credential, IAM can no longer answer who performed a change, PAM cannot cleanly scope elevation to one operator, and offboarding becomes a password problem instead of a lifecycle problem. The practitioner conclusion is that shared access must be treated as a governance exception, not as a normal operating pattern.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 91.6% of secrets remain valid five days after the targeted organisation is notified, showing a critical gap in remediation procedures, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 20% of organisations have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when a shared service account is misused?
A: Accountability should rest with the business owner of the account and the process owner who approved shared access, not with the abstract team label. If the organisation cannot name both, it has a governance gap. Frameworks such as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 expect clear access governance and response ownership.
👉 Read our full editorial: Shared IT service accounts expose SaaS governance gaps
