Permissions don’t become a risk overnight. They accumulate little by little: with every department transfer, every urgent account creation, every temporary access that’s never revoked, or every exception that’s no longer reviewed.

What begins as an operational necessity can end up becoming an open door to security incidents, regulatory violations, or privilege escalation. An employee who retains access from a previous role, an account that remains active after an employee leaves, or a permission assigned “just in case” may seem like isolated cases, but together they paint a picture of a much larger problem: a lack of access governance.

And the impact can be significant. The average cost of an incident originating internally—whether malicious or not—reaches $13.1 million, according to Mimecast. This figure demonstrates that poorly managed permissions are not just an administrative problem: they are a direct security risk.

In this context, access governance enables a shift from reactive access management to a continuous control model. The goal is not only to review who has access to what, but also to understand why they have it, for how long, under what policy, and whether that access is still necessary.

From one-time audits to ongoing access management

For years, many organizations have managed permissions through periodic access reviews. These reviews are still necessary, but they are no longer sufficient on their own.

A user access review can identify accumulated permissions, obsolete access rights, and unnecessary privileges. However, if that review is not part of a broader access governance strategy, the risk resurfaces between one review and the next.

The real challenge lies in building a repeatable, systematic, and centralized model that enables continuous access governance. In other words, a model capable of answering key questions at all times:

Who has access to what?

Why do they have that access?

How long should they retain it?

Who approved it?

Does that permission still address a real need?

What happens when that identity’s role changes?

When these questions don’t have a clear answer, permissions cease to be a management issue and become a source of risk.

What an Access Governance strategy should include 

An access governance strategy is not limited to periodically reviewing permissions. It must establish an ongoing framework for consistently defining, assigning, controlling, reviewing, and revoking access.

To achieve this, it is essential to address several key elements.

1. Centralized visibility into identities and access.

The first step is to know which identities exist and what access they have. Without a centralized view, the organization relies on scattered data, manual processes, and incomplete decisions.

This is where the IAM platform comes into play. Without it, data collection must be done manually, which takes time and effort and increases the likelihood of errors. In contrast, a proper IAM platform provides clear visibility into who has access, what resources they access, and what types of permissions they hold.

This visibility is the foundation for any serious access governance model.

2. Clear and consistent access policies 

It is not enough to know what permissions exist. It is also necessary to define what permissions should exist.

Role-based access control (RBAC) policies allow permissions to be assigned based on each user’s role within the organization. In turn, the principle of least privilege ensures that each user has only the permissions strictly necessary to perform their tasks and no more.

From this perspective, an access governance strategy involves evaluating each user’s current roles and determining what access and privileges they actually require, while eliminating the rest. This is where issues related to accumulated or obsolete privileges are addressed. Furthermore, these decisions must be documented to facilitate audits and regulatory compliance processes for IAM.

3. Control over changes, exceptions and temporary access

Many risks do not arise during a user’s initial onboarding, but rather in what happens afterward: role changes, internal transfers, temporary projects, urgent access requests, or exceptions approved outside the standard process.

An access governance strategy must account for these changes. Each permission should have a reason, an owner, a duration, and clear traceability.

This prevents temporary access from becoming permanent or exceptional permissions from becoming part of the environment without review.

4. Access reviews as part of the model, not as a standalone action 

Access reviews remain a fundamental practice. They allow you to verify whether assigned permissions are still necessary and help identify obsolete access, inactive accounts, or excessive privileges.

But within an access governance strategy, user access reviews are not the end goal, but rather another component of the model. Their value increases when they are supported by centralized data, clear policies, automation, and traceability.

In this way, the review ceases to be a one-time audit task and becomes part of ongoing identity management.

The features that make a difference in a user access review platform 

Throughout this process, having the right IAM platform makes all the difference. A solution focused on access governance should enable organizations to manage permissions in a centralized, automated, and consistent manner.

Among the most relevant capabilities are:

• Centralized visibility into all identities, human and non-human, from a single dashboard (97% of non-human identities have excessive privileges, according to NHIMG)
• Consistent enforcement of RBAC and least-privilege policies.
• Automation of access reviews, modifications, and revocations.
• Complete traceability of every decision for auditing and compliance purposes.
• Continuous detection of accumulated permissions, obsolete access, or misassigned privileges.

This approach allows the organization to rely not only on periodic reviews but also on an active strategy to keep permissions under control.

Soffid: Access Governance from a converged IAM platform

Soffid IGA centralizes visibility into all identities within the ecosystem, automates access review cycles, and continuously enforces least-privilege policies without relying on manual reviews that are delayed or skipped.

As part of a converged IAM platform that integrates IGA, AM, PAM, and IRC, access governance in Soffid is not an isolated function. Policies are consistent across all modules, traceability is comprehensive, and control remains active between one review and the next, not just during the audit.

Soffid is the only IAM platform developed entirely in Europe with ENS ALTO and Common Criteria certification. For organizations in regulated environments, that’s not just a minor detail. It’s the difference between claiming that access is under control and being able to prove it.

Because the problem isn’t just reviewing permissions. The real challenge is governing them continuously so that every identity has the right access, at the right time, and for as long as necessary.

When permissions are no longer under control, they cease to be an operational issue and become a security risk.

Want to know how Soffid continuously governs access in your organization? Tell us about your environment, and we’ll show you how it works in practice.

Contact our team