They should treat service accounts as both, because the identity lifecycle problem and the privilege problem are inseparable. IGA helps establish ownership, lifecycle, and review, while PAM helps constrain high-risk access and reduce standing privilege. In practice, the programme needs both control planes to keep machine identities from becoming unmanaged privileged assets.
Why This Matters for Security Teams
service account are not just technical plumbing. They are non-human identities with lifecycle, ownership, and privilege, which means the PAM-first versus IGA-first question is really about which control plane sees the risk first. If a team only uses PAM, it can lock down access but still leave orphaned accounts, unclear ownership, and missed recertification. If it only uses IGA, it can document the identity but still allow standing privilege to linger.
The most effective programmes treat service accounts as a shared problem because the abuse pattern usually starts with weak governance and ends with excessive privilege. NHIMG research shows that only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which makes both review and containment difficult. That gap is why NHI governance guidance, including the Ultimate Guide to NHIs — What are Non-Human Identities and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0, both emphasise ownership, access control, and continuous monitoring rather than one-time registration.
In practice, many security teams encounter service account abuse only after a breach review, rather than through intentional lifecycle governance.
How It Works in Practice
The practical answer is to start with IGA for inventory, ownership, and recertification, then use PAM to reduce standing privilege and mediate high-risk actions. For service accounts, IGA should answer: who owns this account, what system depends on it, when was it created, and when should it be retired? PAM should answer: what can it access, under what conditions, and can that access be made just-in-time or tightly scoped?
That division of labour matters because service accounts often outlive the application they were created for. They also accumulate permissions as workflows change, which is why excessive privilege becomes the default. NHIMG’s breach analysis shows this is not a theoretical risk. The 52 NHI Breaches Analysis and the BeyondTrust API key breach both reinforce the same lesson: unmanaged machine credentials can become privileged pathways into critical systems.
A workable operating model usually includes:
- IGA-owned inventory of every service account, with a named business or technical owner.
- PAM-enforced controls for privileged service accounts, including vaulted secrets, approval, and session or command restriction where possible.
- Lifecycle review tied to application change management so orphaned accounts are removed quickly.
- Rotation, expiration, and offboarding rules for secrets, especially when accounts are used by CI/CD or integration tooling.
Current guidance suggests mapping service accounts to least-privilege access paths and using PAM to minimise standing privilege, while IGA maintains review discipline and accountability. These controls tend to break down in large DevOps estates with hard-coded credentials and unmanaged application-to-application dependencies because ownership is unclear and rotation can interrupt production.
Common Variations and Edge Cases
Tighter PAM often increases operational overhead, requiring organisations to balance reduced exposure against deployment friction and uptime risk. That tradeoff is real, especially for legacy systems, shared infrastructure accounts, and vendor-managed integrations.
There is no universal standard for this yet, but best practice is evolving toward a layered model: IGA first for visibility and ownership, PAM first for the highest-risk privileges, and both working together for the same service account over time. For high-volume environments, some teams use IGA to classify accounts into tiers and then route only privileged tiers into PAM workflows. Others apply PAM only to secrets that can be rotated safely, while leaving lower-risk service accounts under strict review and removal controls.
For organisations modernising governance, the key is not to debate whether a service account is “an IGA object” or “a PAM object.” It is to ensure every account has an owner, a purpose, an expiry path, and a constrained access model. The Dropbox Sign breach is a useful reminder that access sprawl and weak control over non-human credentials can create broad blast radius long before anyone notices. The governing principle is simple: IGA finds the account, PAM constrains the power, and neither control is sufficient on its own.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 address the attack and risk surface, while NIST CSF 2.0 and NIST AI RMF set the governance and control requirements practitioners need to meet.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 | NHI-03 | Service accounts need rotation and lifecycle controls to avoid stale credentials. |
| NIST CSF 2.0 | PR.AC-4 | Least-privilege access management fits the PAM side of service account control. |
| NIST AI RMF | GOVERN | Service account accountability depends on clear governance and ownership. |
Inventory service accounts, assign owners, and enforce rotation and revocation on a set schedule.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
Deepen Your Knowledge
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on June 6, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org
