By Diana Kelley, Burton Group Analyst
Regulations such as SOX don't explicitly require implementation of an identity management system with robust provisioning. However, the foundation of many compliance programs is the capacity to mange and report on roles and access for users. Provisioning tools can help automate the process by automatically creating accounts with appropriate levels of access. The flip side of provisioning -- de-provisioning -- is also a critical piece of access control compliance because it can ensure that user rights are quickly revoked when necessary.
There's no question that automating provisioning and de-provisioning of accounts with robust tooling can result in increased granularity of access control and overall efficiency in the compliance process.
Here's what provisioning tools can't do: they can't do the work of defining roles and responsibilities in your organization, and they can't automatically determine how best to fit in strategically with the corporate architecture. Determining who and what must have access to which systems, applications and devices on the corporate network is an exercise that should be completed prior to deployment of the provisioning solution.
Once the rules and roles have been defined, an enterprise must decide where to house that information and how it will be accessed. This is because many provisioning systems are predicated on the existence of an authoritative source of identity information. If such an authoritative source does not exist, provisioning automation may introduce fragmentation or confusion.
Provisioning tools can automate account creation and elimination but they must be configured with the right information and have access to up-to-date authoritative identity and attribute stores. In short: clean house first. Complete role definition and repository populating work before deploying provisioning; there's little sense in automating a broken process.
|