Why Azure AD May Not Be Enough for Comprehensive Identity Governance – Testkings

In today’s digital world, organizations face an increasing need to manage user identities and their access to critical systems and data. Two terms that are often used interchangeably in discussions about identity management are Identity and Access Management (IAM) and Identity Governance and Administration (IGA). However, while these two terms are related, they serve different purposes and address different challenges within an organization’s overall security and compliance framework. Understanding the distinction between IAM and IGA is crucial for organizations looking to implement a comprehensive identity and access strategy.

What is Identity and Access Management (IAM)?

Identity and Access Management (IAM) refers to the processes and technologies that an organization uses to manage the identities of users, and control their access to systems and applications. IAM systems are designed to ensure that only authorized individuals can access specific resources and that they can only perform actions within the boundaries of their roles.

At its core, IAM is concerned with the real-time aspects of identity and access. This means that IAM systems are responsible for ensuring that users can be authenticated and authorized to access a system, application, or network resource at the moment they attempt to use it. IAM systems use various methods for authentication (like usernames and passwords, multi-factor authentication, and biometric verification) and authorization (such as role-based access control or attribute-based access control) to enforce policies that define who can access what, and under what conditions.

A key feature of IAM systems is the real-time enforcement of these access policies. For example, when a user logs in to a system, IAM verifies the user’s identity through authentication, and then the system checks whether the user has the necessary permissions to access the requested resources. If the user’s access request aligns with their role or permissions, they are granted access. Otherwise, the request is denied.

In addition to controlling access, IAM solutions often include other features, such as user provisioning, password management, and reporting on who accessed what resources and when. These systems are typically focused on operational processes, such as adding new users, updating permissions, and removing access when users leave the organization or change roles.

What is Identity Governance and Administration (IGA)?

While IAM focuses on real-time access management, Identity Governance and Administration (IGA) takes a more strategic approach to managing identities and their associated access. IGA solutions extend IAM by providing tools to govern, monitor, and audit the use of user identities and their permissions over time. IGA is not about managing access in real-time (like IAM) but is instead concerned with the broader governance of access rights, ensuring compliance, and ensuring that users have appropriate access based on their roles within the organization.

IGA focuses on four main areas: identity lifecycle management, access review and certification, access policy enforcement, and audit and compliance reporting. These areas enable organizations to manage user identities and access permissions across their entire lifecycle, from the moment a user is onboarded to the moment they exit the organization.

One of the core functions of IGA is lifecycle management. This includes automating the processes of user provisioning, role assignment, and de-provisioning. When an employee joins an organization, IGA ensures that they are granted the appropriate access to applications and systems based on their job role. Similarly, when an employee leaves the organization or changes roles, IGA ensures that their access is promptly revoked or adjusted to reflect their new responsibilities.

Another key feature of IGA is access reviews and certifications. These are periodic processes in which organizations review user access rights to ensure that they remain appropriate over time. For example, access certification involves periodic reviews of access privileges by managers or business owners to confirm that users have the necessary access to perform their jobs and nothing more. IGA tools often provide automated workflows to facilitate these reviews, reducing the risk of human error and ensuring that the process is completed in a timely manner. This is essential for organizations that must comply with regulatory standards such as SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley), HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), or GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation).

IGA also helps enforce policies related to who can access what resources and under what circumstances. By integrating with IAM systems, IGA can ensure that the organization’s security and compliance requirements are consistently applied across all systems, whether on-premises or in the cloud. For example, an IGA solution can enforce policies that ensure users only have access to applications and data based on their specific job requirements, and that access is automatically revoked when it is no longer needed.

Key Differences Between IAM and IGA

While IAM and IGA are both integral parts of identity management, they serve different functions and address different needs within an organization. The most significant difference lies in the timing and scope of their operations.

Real-time vs. Governance: IAM systems focus on real-time authentication and authorization decisions. When a user tries to access a system, IAM is responsible for verifying their identity and granting or denying access based on predefined policies. IGA, in contrast, focuses on governance over time—ensuring that access permissions are appropriate, compliant, and aligned with organizational policies and regulatory standards.
Access Management vs. Identity Lifecycle Management: IAM manages who has access to what resources at any given moment, whereas IGA focuses on managing the entire identity lifecycle, from provisioning new users to revoking access when employees leave the organization. IGA ensures that users are continuously aligned with their job roles and compliance requirements.
Access Reviews and Certification: IGA includes features for conducting access reviews and certifications to ensure that users still need access to the resources they have been assigned. IAM does not typically provide these capabilities; it is primarily focused on granting or denying access in real-time.
Compliance and Auditing: IGA solutions often include auditing and compliance reporting features, enabling organizations to track who has access to what, when, and why. This is especially important for organizations that must adhere to regulatory standards. IAM does not typically include these features, as its primary focus is on enforcing access policies in real-time.

Examples of IAM and IGA in Action

To illustrate the difference between IAM and IGA, consider a financial institution that needs to manage employee access to sensitive financial data.

IAM in Action: When an employee logs into the company’s network, the IAM system will authenticate their credentials (username/password, multi-factor authentication) and check whether they are authorized to access specific financial applications based on their role. If the user is part of the “Finance” group, for example, they may have access to certain financial records, whereas a user in the “HR” group would be denied access to these records. This process occurs in real-time, ensuring that the employee is granted access only to the resources they are authorized to use.
IGA in Action: Once the employee has access, IGA will manage their identity over time, ensuring that their access is appropriate based on their role within the organization. The IGA system might periodically review the employee’s access rights to ensure they still require access to sensitive financial data. If the employee changes roles within the organization, the IGA system ensures that their access rights are updated accordingly. Additionally, the IGA system will ensure that when the employee leaves the company, their access is revoked in a timely manner, in compliance with the organization’s internal policies and regulatory requirements.

In summary, while IAM and IGA are closely related, they address different aspects of identity and access management. IAM is primarily focused on real-time authentication and access control, ensuring that only authorized users can access specific systems or resources at any given time. On the other hand, IGA is focused on the broader governance of identities and access permissions, ensuring that access rights remain appropriate over time, comply with regulatory standards, and are subject to periodic reviews and audits.

By understanding the distinction between IAM and IGA, organizations can better plan and implement comprehensive identity and access management strategies that not only secure their systems in real-time but also ensure ongoing compliance and governance. Both IAM and IGA are essential for securing sensitive data and maintaining a high level of trust and compliance within any organization.

The Role of Microsoft Azure AD in Identity Governance

Microsoft Azure Active Directory (Azure AD) is a cloud-based identity and access management service that provides several capabilities to help manage users and their access to various applications and systems. Azure AD plays a central role in identity and access management for organizations that rely on Microsoft services and a variety of third-party applications. However, while Azure AD excels in identity and access management (IAM), it leaves many gaps when it comes to Identity Governance and Administration (IGA).

Understanding the Scope of Azure AD

Azure AD is primarily an Identity-as-a-Service (IDaaS) solution, and its core focus is to provide authentication and authorization services in real time. It helps organizations manage user identities and their access to resources such as applications, servers, and cloud-based services. The system is integrated with a wide array of Microsoft products, such as Office 365, Azure, and other cloud-based applications, and it supports common standards for authentication, such as OAuth, SAML, and OpenID Connect. Azure AD allows users to sign in once and access a variety of applications using single sign-on (SSO), and it offers features like multi-factor authentication (MFA) to enhance security.

At its core, Azure AD manages access based on roles, groups, and policies. It allows administrators to assign users to groups, grant access to apps, and enforce security policies. These capabilities enable organizations to manage user access effectively on a day-to-day basis. Azure AD can be used to manage access across Microsoft’s own suite of products, as well as third-party applications that support integration with Azure AD for authentication.

However, while Azure AD is robust in terms of real-time access management, it is lacking in the tools and capabilities that are essential for comprehensive identity governance. Identity governance includes the management of users across their entire lifecycle, from onboarding and provisioning to termination, as well as the governance of their access rights and the enforcement of compliance policies. In many cases, organizations need additional tools and features to achieve these goals, which leads us to the limitations of Azure AD’s identity governance capabilities.

Azure AD’s Identity Governance Capabilities

Azure AD does offer some basic identity governance features, but these are limited compared to more comprehensive IGA solutions like SailPoint, Saviynt, or other specialized governance platforms. One of the primary capabilities offered by Azure AD is access governance, which includes access reviews and approval workflows for applications and services integrated with Azure AD.

Access Reviews:
Access reviews are a core part of Azure AD’s identity governance feature set. These reviews are designed to periodically evaluate whether users still need access to specific resources or applications. Access reviews are important for maintaining compliance and ensuring that users’ access is still appropriate based on their roles and responsibilities within the organization. However, Azure AD’s access reviews are somewhat limited in their scope and functionality. While the tool allows administrators to set up periodic access reviews, the process is not as comprehensive or automated as in dedicated IGA solutions. Access reviews in Azure AD typically involve manually setting up review campaigns, where designated reviewers (such as managers) must manually review and certify user access.
Approval Workflows:
Azure AD also provides the ability to configure approval workflows for access to applications and other resources. This is an important feature in managing user access and ensuring that appropriate permissions are granted only to users who have gone through the proper channels. Administrators can set up workflows to request approval from specific individuals (e.g., managers) before granting users access to resources. While this workflow is useful for basic access control, it can be cumbersome and lacks the flexibility offered by more advanced IGA solutions, which typically offer more granular control and automation of these workflows.

Despite these features, Azure AD’s identity governance capabilities fall short in several key areas. For example, it does not support detailed lifecycle management, such as automatically provisioning and de-provisioning user accounts across a wide range of systems or handling user access across complex workflows. These are essential capabilities for ensuring that access is continuously managed and reviewed according to organizational policies and compliance standards.

Limitations in Lifecycle Management and Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)

One of the major limitations of Azure AD’s identity governance functionality is the lack of robust identity lifecycle management. In an ideal identity governance system, user accounts are automatically provisioned when a new employee is hired and de-provisioned when they leave the organization. This ensures that users only have access to the resources they need at any given time and that their access is revoked promptly when no longer necessary.

Azure AD does not offer the same level of automation for managing the full lifecycle of an identity. For example, Azure AD can integrate with Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) and other systems to automatically create user accounts and assign roles when new employees are onboarded. However, Azure AD does not provide full lifecycle management for user roles, and it lacks the advanced capabilities required for managing identity changes throughout the employee’s tenure. If a user’s role or responsibilities change within the organization, Azure AD does not provide an automated mechanism for adjusting their access rights based on these changes. Instead, administrators must manually update user permissions, which can lead to errors and inconsistencies over time.

Additionally, when an employee leaves the organization, Azure AD lacks automatic mechanisms for ensuring that all access permissions are promptly revoked. While users can be removed from groups or de-provisioned manually, there is no built-in, automated process for completely deactivating user accounts across all integrated systems and applications. This leaves organizations vulnerable to potential security risks, as orphaned accounts or lingering permissions can provide unauthorized access to sensitive systems or data.

In contrast, more robust IGA solutions like SailPoint offer identity lifecycle management that automates the entire process, from onboarding to offboarding. These systems can automatically detect changes to user roles, update access rights accordingly, and ensure that users’ access is revoked as soon as they are no longer authorized to use the system. Additionally, these systems provide real-time reporting and auditing capabilities to ensure that user access is continuously monitored and compliant with organizational policies and regulations.

Access Governance Gaps in Azure AD

While Azure AD provides basic access governance tools, such as access reviews and approval workflows, it has significant gaps when it comes to fully managing access rights across complex organizations. For instance, access governance in Azure AD primarily revolves around group assignments and app access. While these features are useful, they are limited in scope. Azure AD’s access governance capabilities do not extend to managing fine-grained permissions or providing comprehensive reporting on who has access to specific resources and why. In other words, Azure AD allows administrators to manage access at a broad level (e.g., assigning users to groups or applications), but it does not offer the detailed governance required to track and manage users’ access to individual systems or data at a more granular level.

In particular, Azure AD struggles with managing third-party applications and services that are not integrated with Azure AD for authentication. While Azure AD can manage access to services like Microsoft 365, SharePoint, and Teams, it does not natively support access governance for third-party applications that are not integrated with Azure AD. For organizations that rely on a wide array of external applications, this limitation can create significant challenges when it comes to managing user access and ensuring compliance across the organization.

Additionally, while Azure AD provides some basic access reviews, these are primarily focused on group membership and application access. More comprehensive IGA solutions offer features like role-based access reviews, detailed entitlement reviews, and the ability to enforce segregation of duties (SoD) policies. These are critical for ensuring that users have the appropriate level of access based on their job roles and responsibilities, and they help prevent security risks such as privilege escalation or insider threats. Azure AD’s limited capabilities in this area make it difficult for organizations to implement best practices for access governance and ensure compliance with industry regulations.

Azure AD’s Limitations in Identity Governance

In conclusion, while Azure AD is a powerful tool for managing identities and access in real-time, its identity governance capabilities are limited when compared to dedicated IGA solutions. Azure AD excels in IAM functions such as user authentication, single sign-on, and basic access management. However, for organizations that require comprehensive identity governance, including lifecycle management, access certifications, and compliance reporting, Azure AD falls short.

To fully address identity governance needs, organizations must often supplement Azure AD with additional tools or solutions. Specialized IGA platforms like SailPoint or Saviynt offer the advanced features and capabilities required to manage the entire lifecycle of user identities, automate role-based access controls, and conduct detailed access reviews that align with compliance requirements.

By integrating Azure AD with a dedicated IGA solution, organizations can fill these gaps and build a more comprehensive identity and access management framework that ensures both operational efficiency and regulatory compliance.

Azure AD’s Access Governance Challenges and Shortcomings

While Microsoft Azure AD offers a range of features that make it a powerful identity and access management (IAM) solution, its capabilities in the area of access governance are limited compared to dedicated Identity Governance and Administration (IGA) systems. Azure AD’s focus on user authentication and authorization is an essential component for secure access to applications and data, but when it comes to ensuring the long-term, ongoing management of user access, its built-in tools are insufficient for many organizations’ needs.

Access governance is a critical component of identity governance, as it provides the mechanisms to control and monitor which users have access to what resources, and how that access is reviewed and modified over time. This ensures that users have the appropriate level of access to perform their jobs, but no more. While Azure AD includes some basic access governance functionalities, it is missing several important features necessary for comprehensive governance, especially in large or complex organizations.

Limited Access Review Capabilities

One of the fundamental aspects of access governance is the ability to conduct access reviews regularly. These reviews are designed to evaluate whether users still need access to specific applications, groups, or resources. Without regular access reviews, organizations are at risk of granting users excessive permissions or leaving access rights active after users change roles or leave the organization, which can lead to security vulnerabilities.

Azure AD does offer access review functionality, but these reviews are relatively basic compared to more specialized IGA solutions. Access reviews in Azure AD allow administrators to periodically check if users should retain access to resources such as apps or groups. This functionality is important, but it is limited in the following ways:

Manual Setup and Management: Setting up access reviews in Azure AD requires administrators to manually configure each review campaign. Administrators must select which resources to review, who will be responsible for the review, and when it will take place. Although the process is not overly complex, it can be time-consuming and cumbersome, especially for larger organizations with many resources to review.
Limited Scope of Review: Azure AD access reviews are typically limited to reviewing users’ access to groups and applications. While this may be sufficient for smaller organizations or those with basic needs, larger organizations often require more granular and detailed reviews that extend beyond just group memberships or app access. More comprehensive IGA systems provide access reviews that allow organizations to review all access permissions, including individual entitlements to systems, data, and services, making it easier to comply with regulatory requirements and maintain tighter security.
Lack of Role-Based Access Review: One critical aspect of access governance that Azure AD lacks is the ability to review access based on roles. Many organizations implement role-based access control (RBAC) to ensure users have the appropriate level of access based on their job functions. In contrast, dedicated IGA systems allow for role-based access reviews, ensuring that access is aligned with the specific needs of each user’s role and that access to sensitive systems is reviewed accordingly.

Because of these limitations, Azure AD’s access reviews are better suited for simpler environments or smaller organizations, where the scope of governance is relatively straightforward. For larger enterprises, a more robust access governance solution is needed to handle the complexity of their access controls.

Approval Workflows and Complexity

Approval workflows are another fundamental part of access governance, as they ensure that access requests are properly reviewed and approved before being granted. Azure AD provides basic workflows for access requests, allowing users to request access to specific apps or resources, which can then be reviewed and approved by a designated administrator. However, these workflows also come with several shortcomings that make them difficult to scale and manage in complex organizations.

Cumbersome Process for Group and App Assignment: In Azure AD, administrators must go through a relatively manual process to assign users to apps and groups. To add a user to a group, administrators must navigate through several menus, search for the group, and manually add users to it. While it is a simple process, it is not particularly efficient, especially in larger organizations with many users and groups. When adding access to applications or resources, the process is similarly tedious, requiring administrators to search for and manually configure each user’s access. This process is not as streamlined as it could be, especially when compared to more automated solutions offered by specialized IGA tools.
Lack of Granularity in Approval Workflows: Azure AD approval workflows are primarily limited to application access requests. In more advanced IGA solutions, approval workflows can be much more granular. For example, IGA platforms can configure multi-step approval processes, where access requests require approval from several stakeholders, depending on the sensitivity of the resource being requested. Azure AD does not support this level of complexity and is limited to single-step approvals, which may not be sufficient for organizations with sensitive data or high-security requirements.
Inability to Enforce Compliance in Approval Workflows: While Azure AD does offer approval workflows, it lacks mechanisms to ensure that these workflows are always followed in a compliant manner. For example, an administrator with sufficient permissions can bypass approval workflows entirely, which defeats the purpose of having a governance process in place. This lack of enforcement makes Azure AD less suitable for environments where compliance is critical, such as financial services, healthcare, or government sectors. IGA platforms like SailPoint enforce compliance in approval workflows by ensuring that administrators cannot bypass the required approval steps.

The basic approval workflows provided by Azure AD are useful in simple scenarios, but they are not flexible or robust enough for larger organizations that need more sophisticated and automated approval processes. In cases where complex access requests need to go through multiple stages of review, or where detailed compliance is necessary, specialized IGA solutions will be far more effective.

Challenges with External Applications and Third-Party Integrations

Azure AD excels when it comes to managing access to Microsoft services, such as Office 365, Microsoft Teams, and SharePoint. However, when it comes to third-party applications and systems, Azure AD’s access governance capabilities are limited. Azure AD can manage authentication and provide single sign-on (SSO) to a wide range of third-party applications, but its ability to manage detailed access governance across these applications is much weaker.

Lack of Full Access Provisioning to Third-Party Applications: One of the major drawbacks of Azure AD’s access governance is its lack of integration with third-party applications for comprehensive access provisioning. While Azure AD can manage user authentication and provide SSO for many cloud-based applications, it does not provide automatic provisioning and de-provisioning of users in external applications. As a result, organizations must rely on manual processes or third-party integrations to manage user access across their entire application ecosystem.
Limited Support for SCIM: The System for Cross-domain Identity Management (SCIM) is a standardized protocol used to automate user provisioning and de-provisioning between systems. SCIM is widely used by many identity governance solutions to streamline the process of managing user access to third-party applications. Azure AD does support SCIM, but its support is limited and not as extensive as other IGA solutions. This can create a significant gap for organizations that rely on multiple cloud-based and on-premises applications that require user provisioning through SCIM.
Manual Efforts for Third-Party Access Governance: For organizations that need to manage third-party applications, Azure AD’s limited access governance tools can create significant challenges. While Azure AD can grant users access to applications, it does not provide the full access governance capabilities needed to ensure that users have the appropriate level of access to external resources. This often means that administrators must manage access to third-party applications manually, either through custom configurations or by integrating third-party tools, which can lead to inefficiencies and potential security risks.

For organizations with a diverse set of third-party applications, Azure AD’s limited capabilities in managing access governance can create operational complexity and security risks. Specialized IGA solutions offer much more comprehensive access governance for third-party applications, automating the entire user provisioning and de-provisioning process and ensuring compliance with security and governance policies.

Lack of Integration with Role-Based Access Governance

Role-based access control (RBAC) is an essential component of modern access governance frameworks. RBAC ensures that users are granted the appropriate level of access based on their job roles and responsibilities within the organization. While Azure AD supports RBAC for managing access to resources, it does not provide a robust governance framework for reviewing or managing role assignments over time.

Limited Review of Role-Based Access: In Azure AD, role assignments can be reviewed manually by administrators, but there is no automated process for reviewing role-based access on a regular basis. More comprehensive IGA solutions, such as SailPoint or Saviynt, include automated workflows for reviewing roles and ensuring that users’ roles and access are aligned with their current job responsibilities. This ensures that roles are continuously updated and reviewed, minimizing the risk of users retaining excessive access or being over-provisioned.
Inability to Enforce Role Segregation of Duties (SoD): Segregation of duties (SoD) is a key security principle that ensures no individual has the ability to perform conflicting actions within critical systems. Azure AD lacks native support for enforcing SoD policies, making it difficult for organizations to implement this security control across all systems and resources. IGA solutions provide more advanced capabilities for enforcing SoD, ensuring that users are not granted conflicting roles that could lead to fraud or misuse of privileges.

The Need for More Comprehensive Access Governance

While Azure AD provides a range of IAM features and basic access governance tools, its access governance capabilities are insufficient for organizations that require a more sophisticated, automated, and compliant access management system. The lack of robust access review functionality, limited approval workflows, gaps in third-party application management, and the absence of role-based access governance make Azure AD less suitable for enterprises with complex governance needs.

To achieve comprehensive access governance, organizations should consider integrating Azure AD with a dedicated IGA solution, such as SailPoint or Saviynt. These tools offer the advanced features needed to manage access across complex environments, automate governance processes, and ensure compliance with internal policies and external regulations. By combining Azure AD’s IAM capabilities with a robust IGA solution, organizations can establish a secure, scalable, and compliant identity and access governance framework that meets the needs of their business.

Azure AD and the Need for Comprehensive IGA Solutions

While Azure AD provides essential capabilities for identity and access management (IAM), its limitations in identity governance and administration (IGA) often leave organizations with gaps that need to be addressed by specialized solutions. The shortcomings in Azure AD’s access governance, identity lifecycle management, and compliance reporting make it an insufficient choice for enterprises with complex needs or those requiring detailed oversight of access rights, roles, and certifications. As organizations evolve and regulatory requirements become more stringent, the need for comprehensive IGA solutions becomes even more critical.

The Shortcomings of Azure AD in Identity Lifecycle Management

Identity lifecycle management is a fundamental component of IGA, addressing the entire lifecycle of a user’s identity, from provisioning and role assignments to de-provisioning and offboarding. While Azure AD provides basic identity management features, such as user provisioning and de-provisioning, its capabilities fall short in automating the entire identity lifecycle across multiple systems and applications.

Provisioning and De-provisioning Gaps:
In Azure AD, user provisioning is limited primarily to cloud-based applications that are integrated with Azure AD. However, many organizations also use a mix of on-premises systems, legacy applications, and third-party cloud services that Azure AD cannot natively manage. For example, if an employee leaves the company, Azure AD can disable their access to services like Microsoft 365, but it does not automatically revoke access to all other systems and applications that may not be integrated with Azure AD. This creates security risks as user accounts can remain active in other systems, leaving organizations vulnerable to unauthorized access.

More advanced IGA solutions like SailPoint or Saviynt address this gap by providing automated user lifecycle management across a wide array of applications, both cloud-based and on-premises. These tools ensure that when an employee is offboarded, their access to all systems is immediately revoked, reducing the likelihood of orphaned accounts that could pose a security threat. Additionally, IGA systems can automatically adjust user roles and permissions based on changes in job function or status, ensuring that users have the appropriate access at all times.
Role and Access Changes:
One of the key functions of identity lifecycle management is to ensure that users’ access rights are adjusted as their roles within the organization change. Azure AD does not provide sophisticated tools for automatically adjusting access based on role changes. For example, if an employee is promoted to a new role or transferred to a different department, Azure AD requires manual intervention to update their access rights. This manual process is time-consuming and prone to errors, as administrators may overlook certain applications or systems that need to be updated.

In contrast, IGA solutions enable automated role management, ensuring that users are granted or denied access based on predefined rules associated with their roles. These tools can ensure that when a user’s role changes, their access rights are updated across all integrated systems, ensuring that no user retains inappropriate access to sensitive data or resources.

Access Governance: Beyond Basic Reviews

Azure AD’s basic access review capabilities are useful for periodic checks of users’ access rights, but they lack the depth and granularity needed for more complex environments. Access governance should not just focus on reviewing whether users still need access to specific applications, but also on ensuring that users’ access is appropriate based on their roles, job functions, and compliance requirements. Azure AD’s access reviews are limited in the following ways:

Limited Scope of Reviews:
In Azure AD, access reviews are primarily focused on group membership and app access, and these reviews are typically manual. While this may be sufficient for smaller organizations or those with a limited set of applications, larger enterprises with multiple systems require more comprehensive reviews. Azure AD lacks the ability to review detailed access entitlements across systems, databases, and applications. This means that organizations may overlook users who have excessive access or have retained permissions they no longer need.

IGA solutions like SailPoint and Saviynt provide much more advanced access governance capabilities. These platforms offer a wide range of review options, including role-based access reviews, entitlements reviews, and compliance certifications. With these systems, access reviews can be automated, ensuring that every user’s access is reviewed on a regular basis. Additionally, these solutions support detailed audits and reports that provide a comprehensive view of user access and entitlement.
Access Review Frequency and Automation:
While Azure AD does allow administrators to schedule access reviews, the system lacks the flexibility to automate recurring reviews based on specific criteria, such as role changes, time intervals, or compliance deadlines. As a result, administrators must manually initiate each review, which is time-consuming and may not be carried out regularly enough to ensure compliance. Furthermore, the manual nature of Azure AD’s reviews means that they can be inconsistent or incomplete, leading to missed opportunities for identifying potential security risks or compliance violations.

On the other hand, IGA systems are designed to handle automated, continuous reviews. These solutions provide automated workflows that can generate periodic access reviews based on user roles, job functions, and compliance standards. The system can also ensure that reviews are initiated at the right intervals, reducing the administrative burden and improving compliance. By automating these reviews, organizations can ensure that they continuously monitor user access and adjust it as needed.

Compliance and Reporting Challenges in Azure AD

Compliance is a major concern for organizations in highly regulated industries, such as finance, healthcare, and government. Compliance standards such as Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), HIPAA, and GDPR require organizations to maintain strict controls over user access, conduct regular access reviews, and ensure that access is aligned with job responsibilities. While Azure AD provides basic reporting features for user activity and access events, it lacks the advanced capabilities required for detailed compliance auditing and reporting.

Limited Compliance Reporting:
Azure AD provides basic logs of user sign-ins, failed login attempts, and changes to user profiles, but it does not offer the level of detailed reporting required for comprehensive compliance monitoring. For example, it does not automatically generate detailed reports showing whether users’ access rights are aligned with compliance policies or job roles. Additionally, Azure AD does not provide automated alerts for access violations or anomalies that could indicate potential security threats.

In contrast, IGA solutions offer advanced compliance reporting and auditing features that enable organizations to track user access in relation to specific compliance requirements. These platforms can automatically generate reports that show how user access is managed and whether it aligns with policies and regulations. Moreover, they provide built-in alerts and notifications that notify administrators when access violations occur or when users retain inappropriate permissions. This level of reporting and monitoring is essential for organizations that need to meet rigorous compliance standards.
Audit Trails and Continuous Monitoring:
Azure AD does not offer continuous monitoring or auditing capabilities that provide a comprehensive view of user activity over time. While Azure AD tracks basic login information, it does not provide detailed audit trails for every access decision made by the system. For organizations in regulated industries, this lack of detailed auditing is a significant limitation.

IGA systems, however, provide continuous monitoring of user access and activities, capturing every access event and creating a detailed audit trail. This allows organizations to track how access is granted, who approved it, and whether it aligns with security policies. In the case of non-compliance, these systems can provide detailed reports and insights that make it easier to address potential issues and demonstrate compliance during audits.

The Need for Integration with Third-Party Applications

A significant limitation of Azure AD in the context of identity governance is its inability to fully manage user access to third-party applications. While Azure AD provides basic integration with many cloud-based applications for authentication (via SSO), it does not have the necessary tools for managing detailed access permissions or provisioning users across non-Microsoft services.

Third-Party Application Provisioning:
Azure AD can provide users with SSO access to third-party applications, but it does not offer comprehensive user provisioning and de-provisioning for these applications. For example, when a new employee joins the organization, Azure AD will provision their access to Microsoft services, but it will not automatically provision their accounts for third-party applications unless those applications are integrated with Azure AD. This creates a gap in user lifecycle management, as administrators must manually provision users in external systems, leading to potential delays and inconsistencies.

Specialized IGA solutions are designed to handle the complete user provisioning and de-provisioning process across a wide range of third-party applications. By integrating with various systems and using protocols like SCIM (System for Cross-domain Identity Management), IGA solutions automate the provisioning of user accounts across cloud-based and on-premises systems. This ensures that users are granted appropriate access to all applications they need, without the need for manual intervention.
Granular Access Governance for Third-Party Applications:
Azure AD’s access governance capabilities are primarily limited to applications integrated with Azure AD. However, many organizations use a wide range of third-party applications that are not natively integrated with Azure AD. This creates challenges when managing access and ensuring compliance across all applications. For instance, if a user is granted access to an external application, Azure AD cannot provide detailed governance or reporting on their entitlements within that application.

IGA solutions can fill this gap by offering granular access governance for all applications, whether integrated with Azure AD or not. These solutions enable administrators to enforce role-based access policies, conduct access reviews, and monitor user activity across all systems, ensuring that access rights are appropriate and compliant with internal policies.

Integrating Azure AD with Comprehensive IGA Solutions

While Microsoft Azure AD provides essential IAM capabilities, including user authentication, access management, and SSO, it falls short in several key areas of identity governance. For organizations that require more advanced identity lifecycle management, detailed access governance, and robust compliance reporting, Azure AD alone is insufficient.

To address these gaps, organizations should consider integrating Azure AD with a dedicated IGA solution, such as SailPoint or Saviynt. These platforms provide the comprehensive tools necessary for managing user access across the entire lifecycle, conducting detailed access reviews, ensuring compliance with regulatory standards, and automating user provisioning and de-provisioning processes.

By combining Azure AD with a specialized IGA solution, organizations can ensure that they not only manage user access effectively in real-time but also maintain continuous oversight, compliance, and security across their entire identity and access management ecosystem. This integrated approach will help organizations achieve a higher level of governance and security, ensuring that access to critical systems and data is always appropriate, controlled, and compliant.

Final Thoughts

While Azure AD is a powerful and widely used tool for identity and access management (IAM), it is important to recognize its limitations when it comes to comprehensive identity governance and administration (IGA). Azure AD excels in real-time authentication and access management, particularly within the Microsoft ecosystem. It is an essential solution for handling user authentication, single sign-on (SSO), and conditional access across cloud-based and on-premises applications. However, when it comes to managing identities throughout their lifecycle, enforcing governance policies, and ensuring compliance with industry regulations, Azure AD falls short of providing the full range of capabilities required by many organizations.

The gaps in Azure AD’s identity governance functionalities—such as limited identity lifecycle management, basic access reviews, insufficient role-based access governance, and challenges with third-party application integrations—can expose organizations to security risks, compliance issues, and operational inefficiencies. For enterprises with complex access requirements or those in highly regulated industries, relying solely on Azure AD for IGA can lead to incomplete access oversight, delayed response times, and potential compliance violations.

To address these shortcomings, organizations should consider integrating Azure AD with a dedicated IGA solution, such as SailPoint or Saviynt. These specialized platforms offer the advanced features necessary to manage user identities and access in a holistic, automated, and compliant manner. By automating key processes such as user provisioning, role-based access management, and access certifications, IGA solutions help ensure that access rights are appropriate, aligned with job roles, and continuously reviewed to maintain compliance with internal policies and regulatory requirements.

Furthermore, IGA solutions are designed to fill the gaps in Azure AD by providing broader, more granular access governance capabilities that extend beyond basic app access and group membership reviews. They allow for continuous monitoring, access audits, detailed reporting, and real-time alerts on access violations or anomalies. This level of governance is essential for organizations seeking to strengthen their security posture, reduce the risk of unauthorized access, and meet the demands of regulatory frameworks such as SOX, HIPAA, and GDPR.

Ultimately, the combination of Azure AD for IAM and an advanced IGA solution for comprehensive governance will provide organizations with a robust, scalable, and secure identity management framework. This integrated approach ensures that access controls are both proactive and compliant, helping organizations effectively manage their users’ identities while safeguarding critical systems and data.

As the landscape of cybersecurity continues to evolve, the need for integrated, end-to-end identity and access management solutions has never been more critical. By addressing the limitations of Azure AD with the power of IGA, organizations can build a more resilient, compliant, and efficient identity governance strategy that meets the challenges of today’s dynamic business environments.