Most ID programs still prioritize work based on volume, loudness, or “failed control checks,” similar to how IT ticket prioritization is done. This approach breaks down the moment the environment stops being mostly human and mostly onboarding.
In modern enterprises, identity risk is a combination of factors such as control posture, hygiene, business context, and intent. Each of these can probably be managed on its own. The real danger is the harmful combination when multiple weaknesses match and give the attacker a clean chain from intrusion to impact.
A useful prioritization framework treats identity risk as contextual exposure rather than configuration integrity.
1. Attitude control: Compliance and security as risk signals, not checkboxes
Attitude control answers a simple question: “If something goes wrong, can we prevent it, detect it, and prove it?”
In traditional IAM programs, controls are evaluated as “configured/unconfigured.” But prioritization requires more nuance. Missing controls amplify risks, the severity of which depends on what identities are protected, what those identities can do, and what other downstream controls are put in place.
Key control categories that directly shape exposure:
Authentication and Session Control MFA, SSO enforcement, session/token expiration, refresh control, login rate limits, lockouts. Credential and secret management No clear text/hardcoded credentials, strong hashing, secure IdP usage, proper secret rotation. Authorization and Access Control Enforced access control, audited login and authorization attempts, secure redirection/callback for SSO flows. Protocols and Cryptographic Controls Industry standard protocols, avoidance of legacy protocols, and future-proofing (e.g. quantum safety).
Priority Lens – Lack of control is not a problem everywhere as well. Missing MFA on low-impact identities is not the same as missing MFA on privileged identities associated with business-critical systems. Control posture must be evaluated in context.
Key identity security gaps to find and resolve
A practical checklist to help you assess your application assets and improve your organization’s identity security posture:
Identify the most common gaps Briefly explain why it is important to address the gaps Suggest specific actions to take with existing tools/processes Other considerations to keep in mind
Download checklist
2. Identity Hygiene: Structural Weaknesses Attackers (and Autonomous Agent AI) Love
Hygiene is not just about tidying up. It’s about ownership, lifecycle, and intent. Hygiene Answer: Who owns this identity? Why does it exist? Do you still need it?
The most common hygiene conditions that cause systemic exposure are:
Local Accounts – Bypasses centralized policies (SSO/MFA/Conditional Access), deviates from standards, and is difficult to audit. Orphaned accounts – no responsible owners = no one to notice, clean up, or prove abuse. Dormant Accounts – “Unused” does not mean safe, and dormancy often means unmonitored persistence. Non-human identities (NHI) with no ownership or clear purpose – service accounts, API tokens, and agent IDs proliferating due to automation and agent workflows. Old service accounts and tokens – Permissions accumulate, rotation stops, and “temporary” becomes permanent.
Lens of priorities – Hygiene issues are the raw material for violations. Attackers prefer ignored identities because they are less protected, less monitored, and more likely to hold excessive privileges.
3. Business context: Risk is proportional to impact as well as exploitability.
Security teams often prioritize based solely on technical severity. It’s incomplete. In a business context, the question is: what breaks in the event of a breach?
Business context includes:
Business criticality of the application or workflow (revenue, operations, customer trust) Data sensitivity (PII, PHI, financial data, regulatory data) Scope of impact through the trust path (which downstream systems are reachable) Operational dependencies (causing outages, shipping delays, payroll failures, etc.)
Prioritization Lens – Identity risk is not just about “can an attacker get in?” it’s also about “what happens if an attacker gets in.” High severity exposures on low-impact systems should not be prioritized over moderate exposures on mission-critical systems.
4. User Intent: The Missing Aspect of Most Identity Programs
Identity decisions are often made without answering the question, “What is this identity trying to do now, and is it consistent with its purpose?”
Intent matters when:
Agent workflows that autonomously invoke tools to perform actions M2M patterns that appear legitimate but may be out of order or destination Behavior bordering on insider risk where credentials are valid but usage is not
Signals that help infer intent include:
Interaction patterns (which tools/endpoints are called and in what order) Time-based anomalies and access frequency Privilege usage and assigned privileges (what is actually exercised) Traversal behavior between applications (abnormal lateral movements)
Priority Lens – Weakly controlled IDs with active and unusual intentions should jump the queue. Not only because it’s vulnerable, but because it might be currently being used.
Toxic combinations: where risk becomes non-linear
The biggest prioritization mistake is treating problems as additive. Real-world identity incidents are synergistic, allowing attackers to chain weaknesses together. Risk increases non-linearly when control gaps, poor hygiene, impact intensity, and suspicious intent coincide.
Examples of harmful combinations that should be treated as “drop everything”:
Entry level toxic combo (easy target)
Orphaned Accounts + Missing MFA Orphaned Accounts + Missing MFA + Missing Logins Rate Limiting Local Accounts + Missing Login/Authentication Audit Logs Orphaned Accounts + Excessive Privileges (even if nothing seems to be wrong today)
Active Exploit Risks (Time Matters)
Orphaned accounts + missing MFA + recent activity Dormant accounts + recent activity (why did they come back?) Local accounts + exposed credential indicators (or known hard-coded patterns)
Severity of systemic exposure
Orphaned Accounts + Missing MFA + Missing Rate Limiting Local Accounts + Missing Audit Logs + Missing Rate Limiting (Silent Compromise Path) Dormant NHI + Hardcoded Credentials + No Audit Logs (Persistent, Invisible Machine Access) Add in business criticality and access to sensitive data and you have a board-level risk.
Violation warning
Orphaned Account + Dormant Account + Missing MFA + Missing Rate Limit + Recent Activity (Exit Dormant Phase) Local Account + Dormant Account + Missing Rate Limit + Recent Activity Dormant NHI + Hardcoded Credentials + ID Concurrent Usage
This is the core of identity prioritization. Single findings alone do not define risk; toxic combinations do.
Practical prioritization models you can use
When deciding what to fix first, ask these four questions:
Attitude Control: What prevention/detection/proof is missing? Identity Hygiene: Do we have ownership, lifecycle clarity, and purposeful existence? Business Context: What is the impact if compromised? User Intent: Is the activity aligned with purpose or a sign of abuse?
Next, prioritize tasks that maximize risk mitigation, not closing checkboxes.
Fixing one harmful combination eliminates the same risk as fixing many low-context outcomes. The goal is to reduce the exposed surface, not a more beautiful dashboard.
takeout
Identity Risk is not a list, but a graph of trust paths and context. Controlling posture, hygiene, business context, and intent are important on their own, but when they work together they create danger. When you set your priorities around toxic combinations, you stop chasing volume and start mitigating the likelihood of real-world breaches and audit risk.
How Orchid deals with it
Orchid passively discovers your entire managed and unmanaged application assets and identities via telemetry, builds an identity graph, and transforms attitude signals + hygiene + business context + activity into a contextual risk score. By ranking the most important harmful combinations through dynamic severity, creating ordered remediation plans, and driving no-code onboarding to governance (managed identities/IGA policies) with continuous monitoring, teams not only address most findings, but quickly reduce actual exposure.
Source link
