Measuring and reducing the identity attack surface: A KPI framework for 2025

Welcome reader to a 🔒 pro subscriber-only deep dive 🔒.

Brought to you by:

👉 Cypago - Cyber governance, risk management, and continuous control monitoring in a single platform

🧠 Ridge Security - The AI-powered offensive security validation platform

Forwarded this email? Join 70,000 weekly readers by signing up now.

#OpenToWork? Try our AI Resume Builder to boost your chances of getting hired!

—

Get lifetime access to our deep dives, weekly cyber intel podcast report, premium content, AI Resume Builder, and more — all for just $799. Corporate plans are now available too.

Executive Summary

In 2025, the identity attack surface—comprising human and machine identities, credentials, access privileges, and identity infrastructure—has solidified as the primary target for cyberattacks, supplanting traditional network perimeters. According to IBM’s 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report, 92% of organizations suffered an identity-related breach in 2024, and 82% of cyberattacks exploited identity-based vulnerabilities, costing an average of $5.2 million per incident. These breaches cause financial losses, reputational damage, and regulatory penalties, yet 94% are preventable with robust identity controls.

This report delivers a comprehensive framework for measuring and mitigating the identity attack surface using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Drawing on 2025 industry data, expert insights, and quantitative metrics, it provides actionable recommendations for CISOs, IAM leaders, and executives.

Key Findings and Recommendations:

• Identity Attack Surface: Encompasses all identities, credentials, permissions, and systems managing them. Identity sprawl from fragmented cloud and on-premises environments amplifies risks. Mapping this surface from an attacker’s perspective is critical.

• Strategic Importance: Identity-driven attacks, particularly privileged account compromises (36% of 2024 breaches), dominate threat vectors. Continuous monitoring is a business imperative.

• Four KPI Categories:

  • Authentication Accuracy: Ensures precise identification (e.g., MFA, deepfake detection).

  • Risk Prediction: Forecasts threats using AI-driven models.

  • Environmental Context Assessment: Evaluates security across hybrid environments.

  • IAM Investment Efficiency: Quantifies returns on identity security.

• Implementation Framework: Establish a C-suite-overseen Identity Security KPI dashboard, co-owned by Security and IAM teams, to drive resilience and compliance.

This report equips cybersecurity leaders with strategic guidance and practical tools to navigate 2025’s identity-centric threat landscape.

Introduction: Defining the Identity Attack Surface

The identity attack surface encapsulates all user and service identities within an enterprise, along with the mechanisms through which they can be compromised. In 2025, as organizations embrace cloud computing, remote work, IoT, and AI-driven operations, identity has become the linchpin of cybersecurity. Attackers exploit credentials, misconfigurations, or legitimate access to bypass traditional controls like firewalls or endpoint protection.

The identity attack surface includes:

• Human Identities: Employees, contractors, vendors, partners, customers.

• Machine Identities: Service accounts, API keys, bots, IoT devices, cloud workloads, serverless functions.

• Credentials: Passwords, tokens, certificates, cryptographic keys.

• Access Permissions and Entitlements: Privileges defining resource access.

• Identity Infrastructure: Systems for authentication and authorization, such as Active Directory, Okta, AWS IAM, or SAML-based SSO.

When attackers steal credentials or exploit identity systems, they gain valid access, rendering many defenses ineffective. Several factors have expanded this surface in 2025:

• Identity Proliferation: Enterprises manage vast numbers of identities. Non-human identities outnumber human ones 50:1, driven by cloud services creating ephemeral identities for virtual machines (VMs), containers, and serverless functions. A 2025 Gartner report estimates 70% of cloud identities are misconfigured or unused, creating exploitable gaps.

• Privileged Access Risks: Privileged accounts (e.g., domain admins, cloud IAM roles) are high-value targets. Privilege escalation paths—hidden routes via group memberships or role assignments—enable attackers to elevate from standard to admin accounts. A 2024 study found 60% of organizations had over 100 such paths, with 20% leading to critical systems.

• Identity Infrastructure Vulnerabilities: Attackers target identity providers and directory services. A 2024 breach at a major SaaS provider exploited a misconfigured SAML setup, allowing token forgery and access to 10,000 user accounts. Similarly, Active Directory vulnerabilities like unconstrained delegation remain prevalent.

• Identity Sprawl and Shadow IT: Fragmented identity systems (on-premises AD, Azure AD, SaaS user stores) lead to inconsistent controls, orphaned accounts, and shadow IT. For example, a forgotten admin account in a SaaS app or a developer-created backdoor can serve as an entry point if unmonitored.

Unlike network attack surfaces, constrained by IP ranges or physical infrastructure, the identity surface is dynamic, spanning cloud, on-premises, SaaS, and remote environments. As one 2025 security conference keynote declared, “Identity is the new perimeter,” necessitating a shift to identity-centric security models.

Technical Example: In a hybrid environment, an attacker might exploit a misconfigured Azure AD role to gain access to a SaaS app, then use a stolen OAuth token to pivot to on-premises systems via federated SSO. Mapping such paths requires tools like Microsoft Entra’s risk detection or open-source BloodHound.

Strategic Importance of Monitoring the Identity Attack Surface

In 2025, identity is the frontline of cyber defense. Verizon’s 2025 Data Breach Investigations Report reveals that stolen credentials drive 80% of breaches, surpassing network-based exploits. The rise of AI-generated attacks, such as deepfake phishing, further amplifies identity risks. Monitoring the identity attack surface is a strategic priority for several reasons:

• Primary Attack Vector: Attackers favor low-cost, high-reward tactics like phishing, credential stuffing, and AI-driven social engineering. A 2025 Ponemon Institute survey found 92% of organizations experienced identity-related breaches, up from 90% in 2024, with 25% involving deepfake or AI-generated attacks.

• Severe Business Impact: Identity breaches cost $5.2M on average, with prolonged detection times (20% longer than other breaches), per IBM’s 2025 report. The Identity Defined Security Alliance (IDSA) notes 85% of incidents cause financial losses, reputational harm, or operational disruptions, yet 94% are preventable with controls like MFA or timely deprovisioning.

• Privilege Misuse and Insider Threats: High-profile 2024 breaches, such as an Okta compromise that used stolen admin credentials to deploy ransomware, highlight the danger of valid account misuse. Insider threats, including disgruntled employees, are harder to detect. A 2025 CISO survey ranked identity security a top priority for 75% of firms.

• Regulatory and Compliance Demands: Regulations like GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, and 2025 U.S. Zero Trust mandates (e.g., CISA’s Zero Trust Maturity Model) emphasize access control. The EU’s eIDAS 2.0, rolled out in 2025, mandates secure digital identities for customer-facing systems. Cyber insurers now require MFA and privilege audits, with non-compliance increasing premiums by 30%.

• Targeted Identity Attacks: Advanced persistent threats (APTs) and ransomware actors target identity infrastructure. Golden SAML attacks forge tokens from compromised identity providers, while Pass-the-Ticket exploits Windows tokens for lateral movement. A 2024 ransomware campaign disabled Active Directory to block defenders, underscoring infrastructure risks.

Continuous monitoring enables early detection—often at the credential theft stage—enhancing resilience against 2025’s sophisticated threats.

Example: A 2024 breach at a financial firm began with a deepfake voice call tricking an employee into resetting an admin password. Real-time monitoring of authentication anomalies could have flagged the unusual reset, preventing $10M in losses.

Key KPIs for Measuring and Reducing the Identity Attack Surface

To manage the identity attack surface, organizations must track KPIs across four categories: Authentication Accuracy, Risk Prediction, Environmental Context Assessment, and IAM Investment Efficiency. Below are key metrics, their significance, 2025 implementation guidance, and industry-specific benchmarks.

1. Authentication Accuracy KPIs

These KPIs assess authentication effectiveness, ensuring legitimate users are identified and unauthorized access is blocked.

• Mean Average Precision (MAP) for User Identification

  • Description: Measures accuracy of frameworks matching activities to users via behavioral patterns (e.g., device, location, time).

  • Target: >98%.

  • Implementation: Deploy AI-driven user behavior analytics (UBA) tools like Microsoft Entra or Splunk UBA. Train models on login patterns, keystroke dynamics, and geolocation.

  • Significance: Ensures accurate attribution for investigations and compliance. A 2025 Forrester study found 15% of logins showed anomalies detectable by UBA, reducing account takeover risks by 40%.

  • Industry Benchmark: Finance: >99% (regulatory audits); Healthcare: >95% (resource constraints).

• MFA Coverage Rate

  • Description: Percentage of accounts with MFA enabled.

  • Target: 100% for privileged accounts; >90% for standard.

  • Implementation: Enforce MFA via IAM platforms (e.g., Okta, Ping Identity). Monitor usage with dashboards tracking enabled accounts and MFA-triggered logins.

  • Context: Tech firms average 90% coverage, retail 50%, per 2025 IDSA data. Low coverage drove 30% of 2024 breaches.

  • Industry Benchmark: Government: 100% (NIST mandates); Retail: >80% (rising from 50% in 2024).

• Authentication Attack Detection Rate

  • Description: Percentage of malicious login attempts (e.g., credential stuffing, password spraying) blocked.

  • Target: >95%.

  • Implementation: Integrate threat intelligence feeds (e.g., CrowdStrike) with SIEM systems (e.g., Splunk). Analyze failed login patterns and IP reputation.

  • Significance: A 2025 Cloudflare report noted 25% of cloud logins were attack attempts, up 3% from 2024, emphasizing the need for robust detection.

  • Industry Benchmark: Finance: >97% (high attack volume); APAC: >90% (improving detection).

• Phishing-Resistant MFA Rate

  • Description: Percentage using phishing-resistant methods (e.g., FIDO2 keys, quantum-resistant certificates) vs. SMS OTP.

  • Target: >60% for privileged accounts, aiming for 100% by 2026.

  • Implementation: Prioritize hardware-based MFA (e.g., YubiKeys) and post-quantum cryptography (e.g., NIST PQC algorithms). Use IAM tools to track adoption.

  • Significance: 14% of MFA attempts in 2025 were deepfake-driven bypasses, per IDSA, highlighting SMS vulnerabilities.

  • Industry Benchmark: Tech: >70% (early adopters); Healthcare: >40% (lagging due to legacy systems).

• Deepfake Authentication Bypass Detection Rate (New for 2025)

  • Description: Percentage of AI-generated authentication attempts (e.g., deepfake voice, video) detected and blocked.

  • Target: >95%.

  • Implementation: Deploy AI-based biometric verification with liveness detection (e.g., Jumio, iProov). Integrate with identity providers for real-time checks.

  • Significance: 10% of 2025 phishing campaigns used deepfakes, per Gartner, necessitating advanced countermeasures.

  • Industry Benchmark: Finance: >96% (high fraud risk); Retail: >85% (emerging adoption).

Technical Example: A healthcare provider implemented FIDO2 with liveness detection in 2025, reducing deepfake-driven account takeovers by 90% during a targeted phishing campaign.

Subscribe to CybersecurityHQ Newsletter to unlock the rest.