As someone deeply involved in identity and access management, this article breakdown highlights the ecosystem’s complexity and specialization. Key technical insights include:
1. The necessity of distinct identity solutions for workforce (IAM), customers (CIAM), privileged users (PAM/PIM), and machines, each with tailored security and scalability challenges.
2. Access control’s evolution beyond RBAC to ABAC and PBAC enables more dynamic, attribute-driven authorization—critical for fine-grained enterprise policies.
3. Machine identity management is increasingly vital, given the volume and risk profile of non-human identities, with automation around certificate rotation and service account lifecycle being complex yet essential.
Integration remains a persistent challenge, requiring standards-based approaches and careful planning to avoid security gaps. Looking ahead, how are you balancing emerging trends like AI-driven risk analysis and zero trust in your identity infrastructures without overwhelming operational complexity?
So we are still solving the same issues that DAP did 35 years ago. We're still dragging x500 around.
> Integration remains a persistent challenge
Modern architecture looks like a fractal of those early Unix/mainframe systems. We smashed the good ideas apart and are now trying to glue them back together over the network. But it is choice that creates many of the "challenges" and to what end?
> AI-driven risk analysis and zero trust in your identity infrastructures without overwhelming operational complexity?
Im not sure that this is a good end, but the real answer is to start removing complexity. There is a host OS acting as hypervisor, then a guest OS running your containers (with their own OS variations)... maybe it's time to strip out some of the layers...
I feel like this swings back and forth because neither monolithic nor microservice approaches completely solve the problem. You want some separation because it allows you to scale just the parts that need scaling, without paying the multiplier cost for the parts that aren't being stressed. You want homogeneity because of the additional operational burden of managing too many little services. Yet you also sometimes want a way to roll out upgrades/migrations one piece at a time, back to front, with monitoring and testing throughout, and this can go a lot smoother when the pieces are already separate. And yet you also don't want to get used to a system that has multiple different versions of various dependencies, and putting them in one binary with statically-compiled dependencies helps a ton. Except when you don't have much choice because different internal dependencies depend on different versions of external dependencies, but you have some control over that and can pay the up-front cost of ONE-VERSIONing your vendorized third-party source. I could go on, but probably the best thing to do is pick a design, maybe even a hybrid of mono/micro, and stick with it.
> We smashed the good ideas apart and are now trying to glue them back together over the network. But it is choice that creates many of the "challenges" and to what end?
This seems to be an example of what you say: "CIAM differs from IAM because customers behave differently than employees. They expect easy registration, social login options, and self-service capabilities."
There's really no reason to do this in two different systems.
As someone deeply involved in identity and access management, this article breakdown highlights the ecosystem’s complexity and specialization. Key technical insights include:
1. The necessity of distinct identity solutions for workforce (IAM), customers (CIAM), privileged users (PAM/PIM), and machines, each with tailored security and scalability challenges.
2. Access control’s evolution beyond RBAC to ABAC and PBAC enables more dynamic, attribute-driven authorization—critical for fine-grained enterprise policies.
3. Machine identity management is increasingly vital, given the volume and risk profile of non-human identities, with automation around certificate rotation and service account lifecycle being complex yet essential.
Integration remains a persistent challenge, requiring standards-based approaches and careful planning to avoid security gaps. Looking ahead, how are you balancing emerging trends like AI-driven risk analysis and zero trust in your identity infrastructures without overwhelming operational complexity?
So we are still solving the same issues that DAP did 35 years ago. We're still dragging x500 around.
> Integration remains a persistent challenge
Modern architecture looks like a fractal of those early Unix/mainframe systems. We smashed the good ideas apart and are now trying to glue them back together over the network. But it is choice that creates many of the "challenges" and to what end?
> AI-driven risk analysis and zero trust in your identity infrastructures without overwhelming operational complexity?
Im not sure that this is a good end, but the real answer is to start removing complexity. There is a host OS acting as hypervisor, then a guest OS running your containers (with their own OS variations)... maybe it's time to strip out some of the layers...
I feel like this swings back and forth because neither monolithic nor microservice approaches completely solve the problem. You want some separation because it allows you to scale just the parts that need scaling, without paying the multiplier cost for the parts that aren't being stressed. You want homogeneity because of the additional operational burden of managing too many little services. Yet you also sometimes want a way to roll out upgrades/migrations one piece at a time, back to front, with monitoring and testing throughout, and this can go a lot smoother when the pieces are already separate. And yet you also don't want to get used to a system that has multiple different versions of various dependencies, and putting them in one binary with statically-compiled dependencies helps a ton. Except when you don't have much choice because different internal dependencies depend on different versions of external dependencies, but you have some control over that and can pay the up-front cost of ONE-VERSIONing your vendorized third-party source. I could go on, but probably the best thing to do is pick a design, maybe even a hybrid of mono/micro, and stick with it.
> We smashed the good ideas apart and are now trying to glue them back together over the network. But it is choice that creates many of the "challenges" and to what end?
This seems to be an example of what you say: "CIAM differs from IAM because customers behave differently than employees. They expect easy registration, social login options, and self-service capabilities."
There's really no reason to do this in two different systems.
Great overview of the major pieces of the identity landscape. I might add a bit more nuance or a few more players, but that's a nit.
Another great resource (not affiliated but I know the author) is this cyber security ecosystem map: https://strategyofsecurity.com/ecosystem