The identity failure layer: The hidden systemic risk CISOs are underestimating in 2025

Welcome reader to a 🔍 free deep dive. No paywall, just insights.

Brought to you by:

👣 Smallstep – Secures Wi-Fi, VPNs, ZTNA, SaaS and APIs with hardware-bound credentials powered by ACME Device Attestation

 📊 LockThreat – AI-powered GRC that replaces legacy tools and unifies compliance, risk, audit and vendor management in one platform

1️⃣ CybersecurityHQ is one of the fastest-growing cybersecurity briefings in the industry, read weekly inside the Fortune 100 and now ranking #1 on Bing for cybersecurity newsletters.

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

—

CybersecurityHQ’s premium content is now available exclusively to CISOs at no cost. As a CISO, you get full access to all premium insights and analysis. Want in? Just reach out to me directly and I’ll get you set up.

—

Get one-year access to our deep dives, weekly Cyber Intel Podcast Report, premium content, AI Resume Builder, and more for just $299. Corporate plans are available too.

The timing was telling.

In January 2025, when Microsoft disclosed that Russian state hackers had accessed senior executives' emails through a forgotten test tenant, the attack seemed almost quaint. No zero-day exploits. No sophisticated malware. Just a password spray attack against an account without multi-factor authentication¹.

This single incident crystallized what security leaders have been slow to recognize: identity has become the dominant failure mode in modern enterprises. Not networks. Not applications. Identity.

The numbers tell the story. Stolen credentials now feature in 88% of web application attacks². They cause 16% of all breaches, with average losses of $4.81 million per incident³. More damning still: 80% of organizations have experienced an identity-related breach in recent years⁴. Active Directory, that 25-year-old backbone of enterprise IT, plays a role in 90% of security incidents⁵.

Yet boards still treat identity as plumbing. CISOs still conflate it with having an SSO product. And attackers? They have realized that compromising identities offers better returns than hunting for software vulnerabilities.

The Silent Accumulation of Identity Debt

Technical debt is visible. It slows applications and frustrates developers. Identity debt is different. It accumulates silently across five distinct layers, each invisible until exploited.

Device Identity: The Ghost Workforce

Every laptop, server, and IoT sensor requires an identity. Most organizations now manage more machine identities than human ones. The ratio averages 10 to 1, yet only 38% maintain real-time inventories of these identities⁶.

Consider what this means. Decommissioned servers retain valid certificates. Forgotten test VMs keep their access tokens. Old IoT devices maintain their API keys. These "ghost" identities persist because teams fear that deleting them might break something. That fear has consequences: 66% of enterprises have suffered breaches from compromised machine identities⁷.

The Ascension Health ransomware attack in 2024 demonstrated this vulnerability. Attackers exploited Windows default settings for RC4 encryption to crack Kerberos tickets offline⁸. The hospital network's device identities, accumulated over years, became the attack vector. No sophisticated tools required. Just patience and computing power.

Board Takeaway: Device identity debt creates permanent backdoors. Every unmanaged machine credential is a potential entry point that never expires.

Workload Certificates: The Ticking Bombs

Modern applications authenticate through certificates, API keys, and secrets. The average enterprise manages 3,700 TLS certificates, projected to exceed 5,000 by 2026⁹. Yet only 8% fully automate certificate management¹⁰.

This mismatch creates predictable failures. Spotify once failed over to plaintext when a TLS certificate expired¹¹. The 2024 GitLab breach at Red Hat affected 800+ organizations through a single misconfigured certificate¹². These are not edge cases. Nearly 20% of security incidents trace back to certificate misconfigurations¹³.

The problem compounds in cloud-native architectures. Kubernetes pods spin up and down. Each requires certificates. Rate limits on certificate issuance APIs create bottlenecks during scaling events. When Google CA Service hits its limit, new pods launch without identities, causing cascading failures¹⁴.

Certificate lifecycle debt is uniquely dangerous because it remains invisible until crisis strikes. Teams discover expired certificates only when services fail. By then, the damage spreads.

Board Takeaway: Certificate management failures cause both security breaches and operational outages. The same misconfigurations that let attackers in also bring systems down.

Service-to-Service Trust: The Erosion Pattern

Modern enterprises run on API calls. Microservices talk to databases. Cloud services sync with on-premises systems. Each connection requires trust. That trust erodes over time.

The Storm-0501 attack chain in 2025 exploited this erosion perfectly¹⁵. Attackers compromised legacy Active Directory. They found sync connections to Azure. They escalated through a synchronized global admin account lacking MFA. From there, they owned the cloud.

This pattern repeats because organizations accumulate trust relationships like sediment. Default trusts persist. Integration points multiply. Documentation falls behind reality. Security teams assume internal traffic is safe. They assume legacy connections are monitored. They assume wrong.

Research from 2024 found that 24% of identity relationships enable privilege escalation¹⁶. One in four connections can turn a minor compromise into a major breach. The DotPe API breach demonstrated this starkly: a single unauthenticated endpoint exposed customer data because developers assumed internal APIs needed no authentication¹⁷.

Board Takeaway: Every API connection and sync relationship is a potential attack path. Trust relationships must be continuously validated, not assumed.

Shadow Automation: The Explosion of Non-Human Identities

The numbers are staggering. Organizations now average 82 machine identities for every human user¹⁸. Nearly half possess privileged access¹⁹. Yet 88% of companies still define "privileged user" as applying only to humans²⁰.

This blind spot has consequences. CI/CD pipelines create service accounts. RPA bots generate API keys. AI agents spawn access tokens. Each automation adds identities outside traditional governance. Marketing creates a bot that accesses customer databases. DevOps scripts hard-code credentials. AI systems generate their own secrets.

The 2024 analysis of 40 major breaches found non-human identities like API keys and OAuth tokens were primary vectors in most incidents²¹. These are not sophisticated attacks. They are obvious exploitations of ungoverned automation.

CyberArk's 2025 report revealed that 68% of companies lack security controls for AI-related identities²². As generative AI proliferates, this gap widens. Every LLM agent needs credentials. Every automation requires access. The sprawl accelerates faster than governance can adapt.

Board Takeaway: Non-human identities outnumber humans 82 to 1 and are barely governed. This shadow workforce operates with minimal oversight and maximum privilege.

Access Pathway Drift: The Configuration Decay

Organizations deploy strong controls. They mandate SSO. They require MFA. They implement zero trust. Then drift begins.

The Snowflake breach of 2024 exemplified this decay²³. The victim company had SSO and MFA for users. But ServiceNow retained local login options. Attackers with stolen credentials logged in directly, bypassing all controls. The "mandatory" MFA was not mandatory. The "single" sign-on had exceptions.

This pattern is universal. Security teams implement controls. Business units find workarounds. Exceptions accumulate. Legacy access paths persist. The intended security architecture becomes Swiss cheese.

Microsoft's own breach proved this point. A test tenant, deemed low risk, lacked MFA²⁴. That single exception became the entry point for reading executive emails. One misconfiguration. One forgotten test account. One catastrophic breach.

Board Takeaway: Security architectures decay without continuous enforcement. Every exception and workaround creates a bypass route for attackers.

Table: The Five Layers of Identity Debt

The AI Acceleration: When Misconfigurations Become Instant Exploits

Artificial intelligence has fundamentally altered the identity threat landscape. Not gradually. Immediately.

Discovery at Machine Speed

What humans miss, AI finds. Modern attack tools digest vast configuration dumps, permission matrices, and network maps. They identify privilege anomalies, trust misalignments, and access inconsistencies automatically²⁵.

Consider the traditional penetration test. A consultant spends weeks mapping Active Directory, documenting permissions, finding that one orphaned account with domain admin rights. AI does this in minutes. Across your entire estate. Cloud and on-premises. Every misconfiguration becomes discoverable.

The implications are profound. Those micro-misconfigurations CISOs deemed low priority? AI finds them all. That undocumented service account from 2019? AI knows it exists. The temporary elevated permission that became permanent? AI has already mapped the escalation path.

The Exploitation Pipeline

AI does not just find problems. It weaponizes them. Phishing emails increased 1,265% since late 2022, powered by generative AI²⁶. Credential attacks surged 10-fold²⁷. But the real innovation is in attack chain construction.

Modern AI tools combine vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and identity exposures into complete attack paths²⁸. They plot routes from development environments to production data through chains of identity tokens. What once required deep expertise now requires a prompt.

If an AI discovers 500 misconfigured service accounts, it can compromise all 500 simultaneously. It can test thousands of credential combinations across hundreds of services in seconds. It can identify and exploit trust relationships faster than defenders can document them.

The Governance Gap

Traditional identity governance operates on human timescales. Quarterly access reviews. Annual audits. Manual certification. These processes cannot match machine-speed attacks.

Organizations average 15,000+ security exposures, with large enterprises exceeding 100,000²⁹. No human team can review these manually. No quarterly process can keep pace with daily changes. The math does not work.

The solution requires fighting automation with automation. Continuous monitoring. Real-time anomaly detection. Automated remediation. Identity Security Posture Management (ISPM) tools that operate at machine speed³⁰. Without these, organizations bring knives to gunfights.

Board Takeaway: AI has compressed the window between misconfiguration and exploitation from months to minutes. Traditional governance cannot compete with machine-speed attacks.

From IT Problem to Business Crisis: The Dollar Impact

Identity failures are not IT inconveniences. They are business crises with quantifiable impacts.

The Direct Costs

IBM's data is unambiguous. Credential-based breaches average $4.81 million in direct costs³¹. But this understates the problem. Identity failures compound. They cascade. They create unbounded risks.

When Change Healthcare suffered a ransomware attack in 2024, the identity failure disrupted the entire U.S. healthcare payment system³². Pharmacies could not process prescriptions. Hospitals could not submit claims. The single identity compromise created systemic failure.

Certificate failures alone can trigger seven-figure losses. A 2024 survey found 40% of enterprises risk major outages from SSL/TLS certificate expiration³³. When a payment processor's certificate expires, millions in transactions fail. When a healthcare system's certificate lapses, critical systems go offline.

The Regulatory Reckoning

January 2025 marked a watershed. The EU's Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) took effect, explicitly requiring real-time identity management³⁴. Failures can trigger fines up to 2% of global revenue³⁵.

The requirements are specific. Organizations must manage user access rights in real time. They must implement strong authentication. They must monitor continuously. These are not suggestions. They are legal mandates with teeth.

The SEC's cybersecurity disclosure rules add another dimension. Public companies must report material incidents within four days³⁶. An Active Directory compromise qualifies. A certificate failure that disrupts operations qualifies. Identity failures are now board-level disclosure events.

FISMA 2025 updates require federal agencies to implement phishing-resistant MFA³⁷. The EU's NIS2 directive mandates incident reporting within 24 hours³⁸. The Cyber Resilience Act will require vendors to address default credential risks or face liability³⁹.

The Insurance Reality

Cyber insurers have noticed. In 2025, 88% of companies report increased pressure from insurers to enhance identity controls⁴⁰. Poor identity hygiene means higher premiums. Critical gaps mean declined coverage.

The math is simple. Insurers model risk. Identity failures are predictable. Organizations with mature identity programs pay less. Those without pay more. Some cannot get coverage at all.

Board Takeaway: Identity failures trigger million-dollar losses, regulatory fines up to 2% of revenue, and insurance coverage denials. This is not an IT issue. It is an enterprise risk issue.

The Path Forward: Building Identity Resilience

The solution is not another product. It is not better passwords. It is a fundamental rethinking of identity as a continuous control system.

The Zero Trust Imperative

Zero trust is not optional. It is mathematical necessity. With 144 machine identities per human⁴¹, perimeter security is meaningless. Every identity must be continuously verified.

Microsoft learned this lesson publicly. Their test tenant breach occurred because they exempted "non-production" systems from MFA requirements⁴². There are no non-production systems. There are no exceptions. There is only zero trust or eventual compromise.

Organizations implementing zero trust report 50-60% fewer breaches⁴³. Healthcare organizations see 50% reductions with corresponding cost savings⁴⁴. The ROI is clear. The implementation is hard. But the alternative is unacceptable.

Automation or Death

Manual identity management is dead. It cannot scale. It cannot compete with AI-powered attacks. It cannot meet regulatory requirements.

The numbers prove this. Organizations with automated certificate management experience 76% fewer incidents⁴⁵. Those with mature machine identity programs see 64% fewer security incidents⁴⁶. AI-driven provisioning reduces account creation from 4.7 days to 2.8 minutes⁴⁷.

Automation must span the identity lifecycle. Discovery of all identities. Continuous monitoring of configurations. Real-time detection of anomalies. Automated remediation of drift. This is not aspirational. It is essential.

The 180-Day Sprint

CISOs need immediate action. Not multi-year transformations. A 180-day sprint to address the most critical gaps.

Days 0-60: Discovery and Inventory Map every identity. Human and machine. Cloud and on-premises. Use automated scanning tools. Document who owns what. Identify orphaned accounts. Find forgotten service credentials. Build the foundation.

Days 61-120: Automation and Hardening Implement certificate automation. Deploy secrets management. Enable MFA everywhere. No exceptions. Rotate all static credentials. Establish lifecycle management. Make security systematic.

Days 121-180: Continuous Enforcement Deploy real-time monitoring. Implement anomaly detection. Establish kill switches for compromised identities. Create governance processes that operate at machine speed. Build resilience.

This is not comprehensive. It is triage. But it addresses the exploits happening today. It reduces the attack surface immediately. It buys time for deeper transformation.

Board Takeaway: Identity resilience requires three things: zero trust architecture, comprehensive automation, and continuous enforcement. Organizations have 180 days to implement basics before the next major breach.

The Choice Is Binary

Identity failures are systemic. They are accelerating. They are inevitable unless addressed. The data allows no other conclusion.

Organizations face a simple choice. Accept identity as an unbounded risk that will eventually trigger a crisis. Or build identity resilience through zero trust, automation, and continuous governance.

The first option is magical thinking. It assumes attackers will not find misconfigurations that AI can discover in minutes. It assumes regulatory fines will not materialize. It assumes insurance will cover negligence. These assumptions are fantasies.

The second option is hard. It requires investment. It requires organizational change. It requires admitting that current approaches have failed. But it is the only path to resilience.

The identity failure layer is not hidden anymore. The evidence is overwhelming. The exploits are accelerating. The regulations have teeth. The choice is yours.

But choose quickly. Attackers are not waiting. AI is not slowing down. And identity debt compounds every day you delay.

As one CISO noted after a devastating identity breach: "We knew identity was complex. We did not know it was critical. Now we know. Now it is too late"⁴⁸.

Do not let those be your words.

References

1. Microsoft Security Response Center, "Midnight Blizzard: Guidance for responders on nation-state attack," Microsoft, January 2025.

2. Verizon, "2024 Data Breach Investigations Report," Verizon Enterprise, 2024.

3. IBM Security, "Cost of a Data Breach Report 2024," IBM Corporation, 2024.

4. Identity Defined Security Alliance, "2024 Trends in Identity Security," IDSA, 2024.

5. Mandiant, "M-Trends 2024: Cyber Security Insights," Mandiant/Google Cloud, 2024.

6. SailPoint, "The Machine Identity Security Blind Spot," SailPoint Technologies, 2024.

7. CyberArk, "2024 Identity Security Threat Landscape Report," CyberArk Software, 2024.

8. Microsoft Incident Response, "Storm-0501 Threat Actor Profile," Microsoft, 2025.

9. Venafi, "Machine Identity Management Report 2024," Venafi Inc., 2024.

10. Ponemon Institute, "2024 Global PKI and IoT Trends Study," Ponemon/Entrust, 2024.

11. Spotify Engineering, "Incident Report: TLS Certificate Expiration," Spotify Technology, 2024.

12. Red Hat, "GitLab Security Incident Disclosure," Red Hat Inc., 2024.

13. ENISA, "Threat Landscape 2024," European Union Agency for Cybersecurity, 2024.

14. Google Cloud, "Certificate Management Best Practices," Google Cloud Platform, 2024.

15. Microsoft Threat Intelligence, "Storm-0501: Ransomware attacks deploying backdoors," Microsoft, 2025.

16. Qualys, "Identity Security Assessment Report," Qualys Inc., 2024.

17. Treblle, "DotPe API Breach Analysis," Treblle Security Research, 2024.

18. CyberArk, "Machine Identity Security Index 2025," CyberArk Software, 2025.

19. Deloitte, "Identity and Access Management Survey," Deloitte Risk Advisory, 2024.

20. Gartner, "Market Guide for Privileged Access Management," Gartner Inc., 2024.

21. Wiz Research, "40 Non-Human Identity Breaches Analysis," Wiz Inc., 2024.

22. CyberArk Labs, "AI Identity Security Research," CyberArk Software, 2025.

23. Snowflake, "Security Incident Investigation Report," Snowflake Inc., 2024.

24. Microsoft, "Security Update: Nation-State Attack Disclosure," Microsoft Corporation, 2025.

25. XM Cyber, "The Artificial Intelligence Threat Report," XM Cyber Ltd., 2024.

26. SlashNext, "2024 State of Phishing Report," SlashNext Inc., 2024.

27. Abnormal Security, "Credential Attack Trends," Abnormal Security Corp., 2024.

28. Palo Alto Networks, "Attack Path Management Report," Palo Alto Networks, 2024.

29. Rapid7, "Exposure Analytics Report," Rapid7 Inc., 2024.

30. KuppingerCole, "Leadership Compass: Identity Security Posture Management," KuppingerCole, 2024.

31. IBM Security, "X-Force Threat Intelligence Index," IBM Corporation, 2024.

32. UnitedHealth Group, "Change Healthcare Cyberattack Update," UnitedHealth, 2024.

33. DigiCert, "State of Digital Trust Survey," DigiCert Inc., 2024.

34. European Commission, "Digital Operational Resilience Act," Official Journal of the EU, 2025.

35. ESMA, "DORA Technical Standards," European Securities and Markets Authority, 2025.

36. SEC, "Cybersecurity Risk Management Rules," U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2024.

37. OMB, "Memorandum M-25-04: FISMA Guidance FY2025," Office of Management and Budget, 2025.

38. European Commission, "NIS2 Directive Implementation," Official Journal of the EU, 2024.

39. European Parliament, "Cyber Resilience Act," EU Publications Office, 2024.

40. Marsh McLennan, "Cyber Insurance Trends 2025," Marsh & McLennan Companies, 2025.

41. Microsoft, "State of Machine Identity Report," Microsoft Research, 2025.

42. Microsoft Security, "Lessons from the Test Tenant Breach," Microsoft, 2025.

43. Forrester Research, "The State of Zero Trust Security," Forrester Inc., 2024.

44. HIMSS, "Healthcare Cybersecurity Survey," Healthcare Information Management Systems Society, 2024.

45. Keyfactor, "PKI Automation Impact Study," Keyfactor Inc., 2024.

46. Beyond Trust, "Machine Identity Management Maturity," BeyondTrust Corporation, 2024.

47. Okta, "State of Secure Identity Report," Okta Inc., 2024.

48. Anonymous CISO, "Post-Incident Interview," Industry Security Summit, 2024.