Should organisations use the same governance model for CI/CD identities as for service accounts?

Why This Matters for Security Teams

CI/CD identities and service accounts both act with delegated production privilege, so treating them under different governance models creates blind spots in ownership, review, and revocation. The real risk is not whether the identity is “human-like,” but whether it can reach sensitive systems, secrets, and deployment paths. NHI Management Group’s Ultimate Guide to NHIs — Lifecycle Processes for Managing NHIs frames lifecycle control as the baseline for all non-human identities, while NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 reinforces governance, access control, and recovery as continuous disciplines rather than one-time setup tasks.

The difference is operational exposure. CI/CD identities are often embedded in pipelines, build logs, developer tooling, and automation runners, which makes them more likely to be copied, over-scoped, or left active after the workflow changes. That is why the question is not whether the same model applies, but whether the CI/CD variant needs stricter guardrails on issuance, vaulting, and revocation. Current guidance suggests that identity governance must follow function, not platform labels. In practice, many security teams discover excessive pipeline privilege only after a repository leak, a compromised runner, or a failed secrets rotation has already exposed production access.

How It Works in Practice

The cleanest approach is to use one governance framework for both identity types, with controls that scale by risk. Both service accounts and CI/CD identities should have an owner, a documented purpose, a narrowly defined scope, an expiry or review interval, and a revocation path. The mechanics are the same: issue only the credentials required for the task, store them centrally, monitor their use, and retire them when the workload changes. This aligns with NHIMG guidance on lifecycle discipline in the Guide to the Secret Sprawl Challenge.

For CI/CD specifically, the control set usually needs tighter defaults because these identities are high-value supply chain targets. Static secrets in repository variables, shared runner configs, or long-lived tokens in build scripts should be replaced with short-lived credentials where possible. Best practice is evolving toward just-in-time issuance, workload-bound tokens, and centralized policy checks at request time. NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 supports this direction through access enforcement, least privilege, and credential management controls, while CI/CD pipeline exploitation case study shows why pipeline compromise often becomes an identity problem before it becomes a malware problem.

• Use one approval and ownership model across both identity types.
• Separate policy by risk tier, not by whether the identity is “service” or “pipeline.”
• Prefer ephemeral tokens, federated trust, and automatic expiry over static secrets.
• Review pipeline permissions after every release process change, not only on a calendar cycle.

These controls tend to break down in monolithic build environments with shared runners and embedded secrets because identity boundaries become hard to attribute and harder to revoke.

Common Variations and Edge Cases

Tighter governance often increases delivery friction, requiring organisations to balance release velocity against exposure reduction. That tradeoff is most visible in legacy CI/CD systems, air-gapped environments, and platforms that cannot federate to a central identity provider. In those cases, organisations may need compensating controls such as encrypted secret storage, segmented runner pools, and more frequent access recertification rather than immediate full migration to ephemeral identity.

There is also no universal standard for how granular CI/CD identity governance should be across tools. Some teams can safely treat all pipeline identities like service accounts with a stricter rotation schedule, while others need distinct policies for build, test, deploy, and release-signing workflows. The key is to avoid assuming that a single long-lived token with broad permissions is acceptable simply because the identity is non-human. NHIMG’s Top 10 NHI Issues and the Ultimate Guide to NHIs - Regulatory and Audit Perspectives both reinforce the same operational point: if an identity can change production state, it deserves the same governance rigor as any other privileged workload.

Secrets exposure data is a useful reminder here. The The 2024 State of Secrets Management Survey found that 88% of security professionals are concerned about secrets sprawl, which is why calendar-based review alone is no longer enough for CI/CD credentials.

Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group

• Should organisations give third-party identities the same governance as employee accounts?
• Should healthcare teams use the same zero trust model for AI agents and service accounts?
• Should organisations use the same policy model for humans and non-human identities?
• Should organisations treat service accounts and AI agents under the same authorization model?