How should teams prioritise which permissions to move first?

Which permissions should move first?

Prioritise the permissions whose misuse would create the biggest blast radius, not the ones that are easiest to inventory. In practice, that usually means production-admin access, infrastructure control, security tooling access, and any role that can change data, credentials, policies, or other privileged settings.

The cleanest sequence is to move the highest-impact access first, then widen the scope once approval, provisioning, and revocation behave predictably. That keeps the programme focused on risk reduction early, while avoiding a half-migrated model that still leaves the most dangerous permissions untouched.

For teams using a cloud or workload access model, this often means starting with the permissions most likely to enable privilege escalation or broad secret access, then working outward to lower-impact operational roles. A permission can look routine on paper and still be the fastest path to widespread exposure if it governs admin actions or production data.

Risk and Threat Considerations

The main risk is sequencing by convenience instead of exposure. If low-impact permissions move first, the programme can look busy while the most dangerous access remains fully usable, which preserves the largest attack paths and the highest operational downside.

Failure mechanism: Broad or highly privileged permissions can enable escalation, lateral movement, destructive change, or mass data access when they are overused or abused. If those permissions stay in place while lower-risk roles are converted, the organisation keeps the largest blast radius for the longest time.

Impact: A misuse event against admin or production permissions can affect multiple systems at once, not just a single account or workflow. That can turn an access migration from a risk-reduction effort into a period of concentrated exposure.

Practitioner Guidance

What to prioritise: Start with permissions that can change production state, grant additional access, or read or modify secrets, credentials, and sensitive data. If a role can alter the security posture of other roles, it should usually move before ordinary operational access.

Decision rule: If two permissions are equally hard to migrate, move the one with the larger worst-case impact first. If one role is heavily used but low impact and another is rarely used but highly privileged, the highly privileged role usually wins the queue.

What to verify: Confirm that each migrated permission has a clear owner, a documented approval path, and a revocation path that works end to end. If removal is slow or uncertain, keep the scope small until you can prove the control is stable.

Common mistake: Teams often prioritise by volume of users or by ease of implementation, then discover that the remaining unmanaged access is exactly the access that matters most. High usage is not the same thing as high risk.

Practitioner takeaway: Sequence by blast radius first, because the first permissions you move should produce the largest immediate reduction in exposure, not simply the easiest migration progress.

Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group

• How should security teams prioritise NHI remediation in cloud environments?
• Should organisations prioritise external exposure or internal credential governance first?
• How should security teams govern non-human identities at scale?
• How should security teams govern non-human identities for compliance?