In our previous exploration, we delved into the contrasting worlds of human and non-human identities (NHIs), highlighting the foundational differences across several dimensions. This journey continues as we uncover more about their unique interactions with applications and the divergent paths in security measures.
A stark contrast becomes evident when we compare how humans and NHIs engage with application ecosystems. Human users typically navigate through user interfaces, executing relatively simple and limited-volume tasks. Whether it’s checking an account balance or updating a profile, the interaction remains surface-level, rarely digging deep into the application's data reserves.
On the flip side, NHIs are the powerhouses operating behind the scenes, interacting with applications on a fundamentally different level. Unlike their human counterparts, NHIs have the capability to execute complex operations, manipulate vast datasets, and perform actions that are integral to the application’s core functions. This high-level interaction allows NHIs to orchestrate large-scale data processes, pushing and pulling information in volumes and with a frequency that human users could never match. This delineation is crucial, emphasizing the operational chasm between user-driven commands and the automated, extensive tasks handled by NHIs.
An often understated yet crucial aspect of identity management lies in identifying the organizational custodian of these identities. For human identities, the responsibility typically falls within the domain of the IT department. This team is well-versed in the nuances of securing access and managing user credentials, with established protocols that reflect a deep understanding of both the technology and the potential human vulnerabilities.
In stark contrast, the stewardship of non-human identities (NHIs) often resides with the engineering or development teams. While these groups excel at creating and implementing innovative solutions, their primary focus on development efficiency and product functionality does not always align with the stringent requirements of identity security.
The divergence in security landscapes for humans and NHIs is stark, with each facing distinct attack vectors necessitating tailored defense mechanisms. Human identities are frequently targeted through social engineering tactics, such as phishing attacks aimed at deceiving individuals into surrendering their credentials. The defensive arsenal against such tactics is robust and multi-layered, including multi-factor authentication (MFA), conditional access policies, and advanced identity management platforms. These measures collectively create a formidable barrier, enhancing the resilience of human identities by intercepting attacks before they can exploit vulnerabilities.
In contrast, the attack vectors targeting NHIs are of a different nature altogether. The absence of a human element to manipulate leaves attackers to seek out weaknesses in how NHIs are stored and managed. Common strategies include exploiting insecure storage practices or leveraging hardcoded credentials within codebases. The security controls for NHIs, while conceptually similar to those protecting human identities, such as secure vaults for token and secret management, fall short in practical defense once an NHI is compromised. Unlike human-centric security measures that actively prevent unauthorized access, the controls around NHIs are passive. They ensure secure storage but lack mechanisms to detect or prevent misuse once an attacker breaches the initial layer of defense. This discrepancy highlights a significant gap in the security model for NHIs: the need for active monitoring and response strategies that extend beyond the vault, capable of identifying and mitigating unauthorized use in real-time.
Our in-depth analysis brings to light the pronounced differences in how human users and NHIs interact with applications, and the contrasting security environments they inhabit.
