They often treat secrets as storage objects instead of governed identities. In practice, passwords, tokens, and certificates need ownership, rotation, revocation, and audit trails. If machine secrets are handled separately from user access, the organization creates blind spots and increases the chance of lateral movement.
Why This Matters for Security Teams
PAM is often deployed as if secrets are static assets that can be stored, vaulted, and occasionally rotated. That framing misses the operational reality: secrets are the enforcement layer for non-human access, and they behave more like governed identities than inert data. When teams separate secrets from identity lifecycle controls, they create blind spots that PAM cannot see until after abuse has already happened.
This matters because leaked or over-retained credentials are frequently what turns a routine compromise into lateral movement, privilege escalation, or supply chain exposure. NHIMG’s guidance on Ultimate Guide to NHIs — Lifecycle Processes for Managing NHIs and Ultimate Guide to NHIs — Static vs Dynamic Secrets both stress that ownership, rotation, and revocation have to follow the identity, not just the vault record. External guidance from the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 aligns with this by treating access governance as an ongoing control, not a one-time storage decision.
In practice, many security teams encounter secret misuse only after a service account has already been reused across systems and the blast radius is visible in logs.
How It Works in Practice
The practical mistake is assuming PAM’s job ends when a secret is stored in a vault. For machine access, the important questions are who owns the secret, what workload is allowed to use it, how long it remains valid, and what event revokes it. If those answers live in different tools, the organisation gets fragmented control and weak accountability. NHIMG’s Guide to the Secret Sprawl Challenge shows how quickly this turns into duplicated credentials, inconsistent rotation, and forgotten service accounts.
Current practice is moving toward secrets as part of identity governance:
- Assign an owner to every secret, including service accounts, pipelines, and integrations.
- Use short-lived credentials where possible so the secret expires with the task or session.
- Rotate long-lived secrets on a documented schedule and revoke them immediately on suspicion.
- Log every retrieval and use event so PAM, SIEM, and IAM records can be correlated.
- Link secrets to the workload or application identity that is allowed to present them.
This is where OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 becomes useful: it frames weak secret governance as an identity problem, not just a vaulting problem. In a mature setup, PAM should broker access, enforce policy, and trigger rotation or revocation based on lifecycle state, not merely hold the credential. That operational model is consistent with NHIMG’s research on leaked secrets, including the documented 27-day average remediation window in The State of Secrets in AppSec, which shows how slow response becomes when ownership is unclear.
These controls tend to break down in CI/CD-heavy environments with dozens of ephemeral jobs and shared automation accounts because secret use becomes too frequent and too distributed for manual review.
Common Variations and Edge Cases
Tighter secret governance often increases operational overhead, so teams have to balance faster delivery against the cost of more frequent rotation, approval, and audit activity. That tradeoff is real, especially where legacy applications cannot yet consume dynamic credentials.
One common exception is systems that require static secrets for technical reasons. Best practice is evolving, but there is no universal standard for this yet: some environments can move to ephemeral tokens, while others need compensating controls such as stronger segmentation, narrower scopes, and aggressive monitoring. Another edge case is third-party SaaS or vendor integrations, where the organisation may not control the credential lifecycle directly. In those cases, the key question is whether PAM can still record ownership, expiration, and revocation responsibility.
Teams also get tripped up when they treat human PAM workflows as a template for machine access. Human access is usually periodic and review-driven; machine access is continuous and event-driven. NHIMG’s Top 10 NHI Issues underscores that the security model has to account for unattended systems, not just privileged users. In the same way, the OWASP guidance makes clear that a secret without an identity, an owner, and a revocation path is an audit finding waiting to happen.
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 | Covers secret lifecycle gaps that occur when PAM stores credentials but does not govern them. |
| NIST CSF 2.0 | PR.AC-4 | Access control must cover machine identities and their secret use, not just human users. |
| NIST AI RMF | GOVERN | Governance is needed to define accountability for autonomous or automated secret use. |
Tie every secret to an owner, set rotation rules, and revoke access when the workload is no longer trusted.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
Deepen Your Knowledge
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on June 23, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org
