🛡️ Zero Trust Access Through Identity-Centric Security
🎯 Enterprise-Grade Access Control Demonstrating Cybersecurity Excellence
📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 2.6 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-01-25 (UTC)
🔄 Review Cycle: Semi-Annual | ⏰ Next Review: 2026-07-25
🏢 Hack23 AB's access control policy demonstrates how 🔧 systematic identity management directly enables both security excellence and operational transparency. Our 📊 zero-trust access approach serves as both operational necessity and 👥 client demonstration of our cybersecurity consulting methodologies.
This policy establishes mandatory access controls based on our 🏷️ Classification Framework and integrates with all systems documented in the 💻 Asset Register.
— 👨💼 James Pether Sörling, CEO/Founder
%%{
init: {
'theme': 'base',
'themeVariables': {
'primaryColor': '#1565C0',
'primaryTextColor': '#0d47a1',
'lineColor': '#1565C0',
'secondaryColor': '#4CAF50',
'tertiaryColor': '#FF9800'
}
}
}%%
flowchart TD
subgraph Core["🔐 Core Identity"]
PRIMARY[Primary Identity Provider<br/>🔐 MFA Enforced<br/>Central Authentication]
end
subgraph CloudOrg["☁️ Cloud Organization"]
IDC[Identity Center<br/>🔐 SSO + MFA]
MGMT[Multi-Account Management<br/>🛡️ Centralized Policies]
ACCTS[Business Accounts<br/>📊 Federated Access]
end
subgraph DevOps["📝 Development Platform"]
REPO[Repository Platform<br/>🔐 MFA Required]
ORG[Organization Access<br/>🛡️ Team Management]
end
subgraph Business["🔗 Business Services"]
CRITICAL[Critical Services<br/>🏦 Banking, 💳 Payments, 📊 Accounting]
MARKETING[Marketing Tools<br/>📱 Social, 🎵 Content, 📈 Analytics]
SECURITY[Security Tools<br/>🛡️ Code Analysis, ⚖️ Compliance]
end
PRIMARY --> IDC
PRIMARY --> REPO
PRIMARY --> CRITICAL
PRIMARY --> MARKETING
IDC --> MGMT
IDC --> ACCTS
REPO --> ORG
REPO --> SECURITY
style Core fill:#1565C0
style CloudOrg fill:#4CAF50
style DevOps fill:#FF9800
style Business fill:#D32F2F
Integration with Classification Framework:
| 🔗 Service Category | 🔐 Primary MFA | 🛡️ Backup MFA | 📱 Methods Supported | ✅ Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identity Provider | Hardware Security Key | TOTP + SMS | FIDO2, WebAuthn, Authenticator | ✅ Active |
| Cloud Platform | Enforced via IdP | Hardware Token | FIDO2, WebAuthn, SMS | ✅ Active |
| Development Platform | TOTP | SSH Certificate | Platform Mobile, TOTP | ✅ Active |
| Banking Services | Provider-issued Token | Mobile App | Proprietary Hardware | ✅ Active |
| Payment Processing | TOTP | Email Verification | Authenticator App | ✅ Active |
| Social Platforms | Platform TOTP | Email Recovery | Native Apps | ✅ Active |
%%{
init: {
'theme': 'base',
'themeVariables': {
'primaryColor': '#FF9800',
'primaryTextColor': '#F57C00',
'lineColor': '#ff9800',
'secondaryColor': '#4CAF50',
'tertiaryColor': '#1565C0'
}
}
}%%
sequenceDiagram
participant User as 👤 User
participant IdP as 🔐 Identity Provider
participant MFA as 📱 MFA Service
participant Target as 🎯 Target System
participant Monitor as 📊 Monitoring
User->>IdP: 1. Username + Password
IdP->>MFA: 2. Request MFA Challenge
MFA->>User: 3. Send Challenge (TOTP/Push)
User->>MFA: 4. Provide MFA Response
MFA->>IdP: 5. Validate Response
alt MFA Success
IdP->>Target: 6. Issue Access Token
Target->>Monitor: 7. Log Successful Access
Target->>User: 8. Grant Access
else MFA Failure
IdP->>Monitor: 6. Log Failed Attempt
Monitor->>IdP: 7. Trigger Security Alert
IdP->>User: 8. Access Denied
end
Monitor->>Monitor: 9. Update Security Metrics
Integration with cloud organization structure:
| 🛡️ Permission Level | 📍 Scope | 🎯 Use Case | 🔐 Access Pattern | 📊 Usage Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administrator | Critical Systems | Emergency operations, infrastructure | Break-glass only | Monthly |
| PowerUser | Core Systems | Development, testing | Regular operations | Daily |
| ReadOnly | All systems | Monitoring, compliance | Continuous access | Daily |
| ServiceManager | Specific Services | Service provisioning | Project deployment | Weekly |
| ServiceUser | Managed Services | Resource consumption | Standard usage | Weekly |
%%{
init: {
'theme': 'base',
'themeVariables': {
'primaryColor': '#7B1FA2',
'primaryTextColor': '#4A148C',
'lineColor': '#7B1FA2',
'secondaryColor': '#4CAF50',
'tertiaryColor': '#FFC107'
}
}
}%%
flowchart LR
subgraph Standard["📅 Standard Access"]
READ[ReadOnly<br/>📊 Monitoring]
POWER[PowerUser<br/>⚙️ Operations]
end
subgraph Elevated["🔴 Elevated Access"]
ADMIN[Administrator<br/>🚨 Emergency]
CATALOG[Service Manager<br/>🚀 Provisioning]
end
subgraph Controls["🛡️ Access Controls"]
TIME[Time-based<br/>⏰ Session Limits]
JUST[Just-in-time<br/>🎯 Request-based]
AUDIT[Continuous Audit<br/>📈 Monitoring]
end
READ --> TIME
POWER --> TIME
ADMIN --> JUST
CATALOG --> JUST
TIME --> AUDIT
JUST --> AUDIT
style Standard fill:#4CAF50
style Elevated fill:#D32F2F
style Controls fill:#1565C0
Role-based access control supports segregation of duties principles by enforcing separation between incompatible functions. See 🚫 Segregation of Duties Policy for:
- Incompatible role pairs requiring separation
- Single-person organization compensating controls
- Temporal and tool-based separation mechanisms
- Audit trail and external validation requirements
Key access control aspects supporting SoD:
- Least Privilege: Default to minimum permissions required for role
- Time-Limited Elevation: Administrator access granted just-in-time with automatic expiration
- Audit Trail: All permission changes and elevated access logged in CloudTrail
- Quarterly Review: Access permissions reviewed against principle of least privilege
Based on business impact and security metrics:
| 🎯 Metric | 📊 Target | 🔍 Measurement | 🚨 Alert Threshold | 📈 Review Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MFA Coverage | 100% | Active MFA methods | <100% | Real-time |
| Access Anomalies | <5/month | Unusual patterns | >10/month | Daily |
| Failed Login Rate | <1% | Failed vs successful | >5% | Hourly |
| Dormant Accounts | 0 | Unused >90 days | >0 | Weekly |
| Privilege Escalation | 0 unauthorized | Admin access grants | >0 | Real-time |
| Session Compliance | 100% | Timeout adherence | <95% | Daily |
%%{
init: {
'theme': 'base',
'themeVariables': {
'primaryColor': '#1565C0',
'primaryTextColor': '#1565C0',
'lineColor': '#1565C0',
'secondaryColor': '#4CAF50',
'tertiaryColor': '#FFC107'
}
}
}%%
graph TD
subgraph Capture["📊 Event Capture"]
CLOUD_AUDIT[Cloud Platform Audit<br/>🔍 API Calls & Access]
DEV_AUDIT[Development Audit<br/>📝 Repository & Pipeline Access]
IDENTITY_LOG[Identity Provider<br/>📧 Authentication Events]
BUSINESS_LOG[Business Systems<br/>💳 Financial & Operations]
end
subgraph Analysis["🧪 Analysis Engine"]
SIEM[Security Hub<br/>🛡️ Event Correlation]
DETECT[Behavior Analysis<br/>🔍 Anomaly Detection]
COMPLIANCE[Compliance Monitor<br/>📋 Policy Validation]
end
subgraph Response["🚨 Response Actions"]
ALERT[Real-time Alerts<br/>📱 Security Notifications]
BLOCK[Automatic Blocking<br/>🚫 Threat Response]
REPORT[Compliance Reports<br/>📊 Evidence Generation]
end
CLOUD_AUDIT --> SIEM
DEV_AUDIT --> SIEM
IDENTITY_LOG --> SIEM
BUSINESS_LOG --> SIEM
SIEM --> DETECT
SIEM --> COMPLIANCE
DETECT --> ALERT
DETECT --> BLOCK
COMPLIANCE --> REPORT
style Capture fill:#1565C0
style Analysis fill:#4CAF50
style Response fill:#D32F2F
Business Impact Justification:
- High financial impact potential (daily revenue at risk)
- Regulatory compliance requirements (audit trails, segregation of duties)
- Operational dependency (cash flow, vendor payments, payroll)
Access Requirements:
| System Type | MFA Requirement | Session Timeout | Review Frequency | Backup Access |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Banking Platform | Hardware token + SMS | 1 hour | Monthly | Mobile app backup |
| Accounting System | SSO + TOTP | 8 hours | Quarterly | Export procedures |
| Payment Gateway | Platform MFA | 4 hours | Monthly | Manual processing |
Business Impact Justification:
- Service delivery continuity requirements
- Development pipeline integrity
- Code and infrastructure security
Access Requirements:
| System Type | MFA Requirement | Session Timeout | Review Frequency | Emergency Access |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Development Platform | TOTP + SSH keys | 8 hours | Quarterly | Local environment |
| Cloud Infrastructure | SSO + hardware token | 4 hours | Monthly | Break-glass procedures |
| CI/CD Pipeline | Platform MFA | 24 hours | Monthly | Manual deployment |
Business Impact Justification:
- Brand reputation management
- Customer communication continuity
- Content and campaign integrity
Access Requirements:
| System Type | MFA Requirement | Session Timeout | Review Frequency | Content Backup |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social Media Platforms | Platform MFA | 7 days | Semi-annual | Content archives |
| Content Generation Tools | Platform authentication | 30 days | Annual | Alternative services |
| Analytics Platforms | SSO integration | 24 hours | Quarterly | Export procedures |
Industry best practice and NIST 800-53 guidance recommend separation of duties for access control administration:
- Access Provisioner: Administrator who grants/revokes access rights
- Access Reviewer: Independent security team member who validates access appropriateness
- Audit Function: Separate audit team reviewing access control compliance
Traditional separation provides:
- Independent validation of access decisions
- Detection of unauthorized access grants
- Prevention of insider threats through collusion resistance
- Compliance with segregation of duties requirements
Typical Process:
- User requests access (or access change)
- Manager/provisioner approves and grants access
- Separate security team conducts quarterly access review
- Independent auditor validates access control effectiveness annually
As CEO/Founder is the sole employee and performs all roles (access provisioner, reviewer, and user), traditional multi-person access review is not possible. Instead, Hack23 AB implements automated tool validation + external audit model:
Roles Consolidated:
- Access Provisioner (grants/revokes all access)
- Access Reviewer (validates access appropriateness)
- Primary User (uses all systems for business operations)
Limitations of Single-Person Model:
- No independent human review of access decisions
- Self-review cannot detect own errors or excessive permissions
- Risk of "privilege creep" without external validation
AWS IAM Access Analyzer (Primary Compensating Control):
| Feature | Capability | Business Value | Validation Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unused Access Detection | Identifies credentials and permissions not used in 90+ days | Reduces attack surface, enforces least privilege | Real-time continuous |
| External Access Analysis | Detects resources shared outside AWS organization | Prevents unauthorized external access | Real-time continuous |
| Policy Validation | Validates IAM policies against AWS security best practices | Ensures secure policy configuration | On policy change |
| Access Preview | Simulates policy changes before implementation | Prevents unintended access grants | Pre-deployment |
GitHub Security Features (Development Platform):
- Organization Audit Log: Complete history of all access changes, permission grants
- Security Alerts: Notifications for suspicious access patterns or unauthorized changes
- Required Reviewers: Branch protection requires PR approval (self-review documented as accepted risk)
- Dependency Review: Automated analysis of third-party access via dependencies
Annual External Auditor Review:
| Validation Activity | Auditor Scope | Frequency | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access Control Effectiveness | Review access grants, permissions, MFA compliance | Annual | Audit report with findings and recommendations |
| Least Privilege Validation | Verify users have minimum necessary permissions | Annual | Excessive permission identification |
| Segregation of Duties Assessment | Evaluate compensating controls for SoD violations | Annual | Control adequacy assessment |
| Compliance Verification | Validate ISO 27001/NIST CSF alignment | Annual | Compliance attestation |
| Control Type | Implementation | ISO 27001 Alignment | Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🤖 AWS IAM Access Analyzer | Continuous automated analysis of access permissions, unused access detection | A.5.18 - Access Rights Management | Provides independent (machine) validation superior to manual review |
| 📊 Quarterly CEO Self-Review | CEO reviews all access grants, permissions, MFA status using IAM Access Analyzer findings | A.9.2.5 - Review of User Access Rights | Systematic review process with automated tool assistance |
| 🔍 External Annual Audit | Independent auditor validates access control effectiveness and least privilege compliance | A.5.18 - Access Rights Management | Independent human validation catches systematic issues |
| 📋 Complete Audit Trail | AWS CloudTrail + GitHub Audit Log provide tamper-evident access change history | A.8.15 - Logging | Enables retrospective review and forensic investigation |
| ⏱️ Automated Alerts | Real-time notifications for suspicious access patterns, policy changes, external sharing | A.8.16 - Monitoring Activities | Immediate detection of access anomalies |
This adaptation maintains control objectives of A.5.18 (Access Rights Management) and A.9.2.5 (Review of User Access Rights) by ensuring:
✅ Access Rights Allocation: CEO manages all access with documented procedures
✅ Regular Reviews: Quarterly CEO review + AWS IAM Access Analyzer continuous monitoring
✅ Least Privilege: Automated unused access detection enforces minimum permissions
✅ Access Right Removal: Systematic removal of unused credentials and permissions
✅ Independent Validation: External auditor provides independent human review annually
Alignment with ISO 27001:2022 Guidance: Annex A.9.2.5 requires "regular reviews" of access rights but does not mandate separate reviewer. The standard allows for "automated tools" to support access reviews. Single-person operations achieve control objectives through automated analysis tools (IAM Access Analyzer) providing machine-based independence + external auditor validation rather than dedicated security team review.
Superiority of Automated Approach: AWS IAM Access Analyzer provides continuous real-time monitoring superior to quarterly human review. Machine analysis detects unused access, excessive permissions, and policy violations more consistently and comprehensively than manual review.
Risk Description: Single-person access administration increases risk of self-review bias and excessive permissions compared to independent security team review. CEO may not detect own errors in access grants or recognize privilege creep.
See 📉 Risk Register for current risk assessment, likelihood/impact scoring, and treatment status.
Compensating Controls Summary:
- Automated superiority: AWS IAM Access Analyzer continuous monitoring exceeds quarterly human review effectiveness
- Machine independence: Automated tool provides independent validation without human bias
- Limited scope: Single-user environment (CEO) has minimal access control complexity
- External validation: Annual auditor review provides independent human oversight
- Complete audit trail: CloudTrail + GitHub logs enable retrospective forensic review
Monitoring & Review:
- Real-Time: AWS IAM Access Analyzer findings reviewed immediately when triggered
- Quarterly: CEO comprehensive access review using IAM Access Analyzer findings dashboard
- Annual: External auditor validates access control effectiveness and compensating controls
When normal access methods fail during critical incidents, the break-glass procedure provides documented emergency access:
%%{
init: {
'theme': 'base',
'themeVariables': {
'primaryColor': '#D32F2F',
'primaryTextColor': '#b71c1c',
'lineColor': '#D32F2F',
'secondaryColor': '#FF9800',
'tertiaryColor': '#4CAF50'
}
}
}%%
flowchart TD
subgraph Trigger["🚨 Emergency Trigger"]
INCIDENT[Critical Incident<br/>Normal Access Failed]
ASSESS[Assess Urgency<br/>Business Impact]
end
subgraph BreakGlass["🔓 Break-Glass Activation"]
ROOT[AWS Root Account<br/>Recovery Email Access]
BACKUP[Backup Authentication<br/>Recovery Codes]
HARDWARE[Hardware Token<br/>Physical Recovery]
end
subgraph Controls["🛡️ Compensating Controls"]
LOG[Immediate Logging<br/>Incident Documentation]
NOTIFY[Stakeholder Notification<br/>Within 1 Hour]
REVIEW[Post-Incident Review<br/>Within 24 Hours]
end
subgraph Restore["🔄 Access Restoration"]
REVOKE[Revoke Emergency Access<br/>Immediately After Resolution]
ROTATE[Rotate All Credentials<br/>Used During Emergency]
AUDIT[Full Access Audit<br/>Within 48 Hours]
end
INCIDENT --> ASSESS
ASSESS --> ROOT
ASSESS --> BACKUP
ASSESS --> HARDWARE
ROOT --> LOG
BACKUP --> LOG
HARDWARE --> LOG
LOG --> NOTIFY
NOTIFY --> REVIEW
REVIEW --> REVOKE
REVOKE --> ROTATE
ROTATE --> AUDIT
style Trigger fill:#D32F2F
style BreakGlass fill:#FF9800
style Controls fill:#1565C0
style Restore fill:#4CAF50
| Credential Type | Storage Location | Access Method | Recovery Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| AWS Root Account Recovery | CEO personal email (MFA-protected) | Email + phone recovery | <15 minutes |
| AWS Root MFA Backup Codes | Encrypted USB (fireproof safe) | Physical access required | <30 minutes |
| GitHub Personal Access Token | AWS Secrets Manager (backup: encrypted local) | CLI recovery | <10 minutes |
| Identity Provider Recovery | Backup email + SMS | Multi-channel recovery | <15 minutes |
| Banking Recovery Codes | Physical secure storage (bank safe deposit) | In-person retrieval | 4-24 hours |
-
Pre-Activation Checklist:
- Confirm normal access methods exhausted
- Document business justification for emergency access
- Assess incident severity (Critical/High/Medium)
- Notify relevant stakeholders if time permits
-
During Emergency Access:
- Log all actions taken with timestamps
- Use minimum necessary permissions
- Complete only essential tasks for incident resolution
- Maintain communication with any affected parties
-
Post-Emergency Requirements:
- Revoke emergency credentials within 1 hour of resolution
- Rotate all credentials accessed during emergency
- Complete incident documentation within 24 hours
- Conduct root cause analysis for access failure
- Update procedures if systemic issue identified
ISO 27001:2022 Controls: A.5.16 (Identity Management), A.5.17 (Authentication Information)
| Phase | Activities | Responsible | Timeline | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Request | Document access need, business justification | Requester (CEO) | Day 0 | Access request log |
| Approval | Verify business need, least privilege assessment | Approver (CEO) | Day 0 | Approval record |
| Provisioning | Create account, configure MFA, assign permissions | Administrator (CEO) | Day 0-1 | Account creation log |
| Validation | Verify access works correctly, confirm MFA active | User (CEO) | Day 1 | MFA enrollment confirmation |
| Documentation | Update Asset Register, access matrix | Administrator (CEO) | Day 1 | Asset Register entry |
| Review | Quarterly access appropriateness review | Administrator (CEO) | Quarterly | Review completion record |
| Termination | Remove access when no longer needed | Administrator (CEO) | As needed | Deprovisioning log |
For each new account or permission change:
Access Request Record
=====================
Request Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Request ID: AR-YYYY-NNN
Requester: [Name/Role]
System/Service: [Target system]
Access Level Requested: [Permission level]
Business Justification: [Why access is needed]
Approval Decision: [ ] Approved / [ ] Denied
Approved By: [CEO signature/date]
Provisioning Date: YYYY-MM-DD
MFA Configured: [ ] Yes / [ ] N/A
Next Review Date: YYYY-MM-DD
| Status | Definition | Action Required | Review Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Active | Account in regular use, MFA enabled | Standard monitoring | Quarterly |
| Dormant | No activity in 60+ days | Verify continued need | Within 30 days |
| Suspended | Temporarily disabled pending review | Investigate and resolve | Within 7 days |
| Terminated | Permanently deactivated | Archive audit logs | N/A |
| Service | Non-human automated account | Monitor for abuse | Monthly |
ISO 27001:2022 Control: A.5.18 (Access Rights)
| Service Account Type | Purpose | Permission Scope | Key Rotation | Monitoring |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GitHub Actions | CI/CD pipeline automation | Repository secrets, deployments | 90 days (via AWS OIDC) | Workflow run logs |
| AWS IAM Roles | Service-to-service authentication | Least privilege per service | Automatic (STS) | CloudTrail |
| Maven Central | Artifact publishing | Publish to group ID | 365 days (GPG key) | Release logs |
| External API Keys | Third-party integrations | API-specific scope | 90-180 days | API usage logs |
- No Long-Lived Credentials: Prefer OIDC federation, IAM roles, or short-lived tokens
- Least Privilege: Grant minimum permissions for specific automation task
- No Shared Secrets: Each service/workflow gets unique credentials
- Rotation Schedule: Maximum 90 days for API keys, automatic for IAM roles
- Audit Logging: All service account actions logged to CloudTrail/audit system
- Alerting: Unusual activity triggers immediate notification
%%{
init: {
'theme': 'base',
'themeVariables': {
'primaryColor': '#4CAF50',
'primaryTextColor': '#2E7D32',
'lineColor': '#4CAF50',
'secondaryColor': '#1565C0',
'tertiaryColor': '#FF9800'
}
}
}%%
flowchart LR
subgraph Create["🆕 Creation"]
REQ[Service Request<br/>Business Justification]
SCOPE[Define Scope<br/>Least Privilege]
PROV[Provision Account<br/>Configure Logging]
end
subgraph Maintain["🔧 Maintenance"]
ROTATE[Key Rotation<br/>Scheduled/Automatic]
MONITOR[Usage Monitoring<br/>Anomaly Detection]
REVIEW[Quarterly Review<br/>Permission Audit]
end
subgraph Retire["🗑️ Retirement"]
DEPRECATE[Mark Deprecated<br/>30-Day Notice]
DISABLE[Disable Account<br/>Test Impact]
DELETE[Delete & Archive<br/>Retain Logs 7 Years]
end
REQ --> SCOPE --> PROV
PROV --> ROTATE --> MONITOR --> REVIEW
REVIEW --> DEPRECATE --> DISABLE --> DELETE
style Create fill:#4CAF50
style Maintain fill:#1565C0
style Retire fill:#D32F2F
ISO 27001:2022 Control: A.8.2 (Privileged Access Rights)
| Privilege Level | Access Scope | Use Cases | Session Controls | Monitoring Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Root/Super Admin | Full system control | Break-glass only | 1 hour max, full logging | Real-time + alerts |
| Organization Admin | AWS Organization management | Account creation, SCPs | 4 hours max, CloudTrail | Real-time |
| Account Admin | Individual AWS account admin | Resource management | 4 hours max, CloudTrail | Continuous |
| Power User | Elevated development access | Testing, deployment | 8 hours max, standard logs | Daily review |
| Standard User | Normal operational access | Daily operations | 24 hours max, standard logs | Weekly review |
For elevated access beyond standard permissions:
-
Request Phase:
- Document specific task requiring elevated access
- Define minimum permissions needed
- Specify time window (maximum 4 hours)
-
Activation Phase:
- Enable temporary IAM role or permission set
- Start session recording (CloudTrail enhanced)
- Set automatic expiration timer
-
Execution Phase:
- Perform only documented activities
- Log all actions taken
- Complete task within time window
-
Deactivation Phase:
- Revoke elevated permissions (automatic or manual)
- Review session logs for anomalies
- Document completion and any issues
| Metric | Target | Alert Threshold | Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Root Account Usage | 0 per month (except break-glass) | >1 per month | Immediate investigation |
| Admin Session Duration | <2 hours average | >4 hours | Review session purpose |
| Elevated Access Requests | <10 per month | >20 per month | Review access model |
| Failed Privileged Logins | 0 | >0 | Immediate investigation |
Trigger Events:
- Employee departure (N/A for single-person, but documented for future scaling)
- Role change requiring access modification
- System/service retirement
- Security incident requiring immediate access revocation
- Contract termination (for any future contractors)
Immediate Actions (Within 1 Hour of Trigger):
- Disable primary identity provider account
- Revoke active sessions across all SSO-integrated systems
- Disable AWS IAM Identity Center access
- Revoke GitHub organization access
- Change shared credentials (if any exist)
Same-Day Actions (Within 24 Hours):
- Remove from email distribution lists
- Revoke access to financial systems (banking, accounting)
- Disable marketing platform access
- Revoke API keys and access tokens
- Remove from any collaboration tools
Follow-Up Actions (Within 7 Days):
- Audit all access logs for terminated account
- Verify no residual access permissions remain
- Transfer ownership of any shared resources
- Archive account audit history
- Update Asset Register to reflect deprovisioning
- Document termination in access control log
After access termination, verify complete removal:
| Verification Check | Method | Timeline | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| No Active Sessions | Session management console | Immediate | Screenshot/log |
| No IAM Permissions | AWS IAM Access Analyzer | Within 24 hours | Analyzer report |
| No GitHub Access | Organization audit log | Within 24 hours | Audit export |
| No API Access | Attempt authentication | Within 48 hours | Failure confirmation |
| Access Log Review | CloudTrail/audit analysis | Within 7 days | Analysis report |
Single-Person Access Administration Effectiveness:
| Metric | Target | Current Performance | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| MFA Coverage | 100% | 100% (all critical systems) | ✅ Exceeds |
| Unused Access | 0 credentials unused >90 days | 0 (IAM Analyzer monitoring) | ✅ On target |
| External Access | 0 unauthorized external shares | 0 (IAM Analyzer alerts) | ✅ On target |
| Excessive Permissions | <5 findings per quarter | N/A (monitored continuously) | ✅ Monitored |
| Access Review Completion | 100% quarterly | 100% (systematic process) | ✅ Compliant |
| Annual Audit Pass Rate | 100% (no major findings) | Planned Q2 2026 | ⏳ Scheduled |
Business Value Demonstration: Single-person access control with automated tool validation demonstrates:
- 🏆 Competitive Advantage: Modern cloud-native access management showcasing automation expertise
- 🤝 Customer Trust: Automated continuous monitoring provides superior assurance vs manual quarterly review
- 💰 Cost Efficiency: IAM Access Analyzer + external audit = €2K/year vs dedicated security team €80K+/year
- 🔄 Operational Excellence: Real-time automated validation vs delayed quarterly human review
- 💡 Innovation Enablement: Streamlined access management enables rapid experimentation
- 🛡️ Risk Reduction: Continuous machine monitoring detects issues faster than periodic human review
- 🎯 Information Security Strategy - Strategic direction, AI-first operations, and access control strategy
- 🔐 Information Security Policy - Overall security framework and AI-First Operations Governance
- 🏷️ Classification Framework - Access control classifications
- 🤖 AI Policy - AI agent access governance and least-privilege requirements
- 🚫 Segregation of Duties Policy - Role separation and compensating controls
- 🔒 Cryptography Policy - Encryption and key management
- 🔐 Privacy Policy - Personal data access governance
- 💻 Asset Register - Complete identity and system inventory
- 📊 Security Metrics - Access monitoring and KPIs
- 🛠️ Secure Development Policy - Development access controls
- 🚨 Incident Response Plan - Access-related incident procedures
- 🔄 Business Continuity Plan - Access continuity procedures
- 🤝 Third Party Management - Supplier access management
📋 Document Control:
✅ Approved by: James Pether Sörling, CEO
📤 Distribution: Public
🏷️ Classification:
📅 Effective Date: 2026-01-25
⏰ Next Review: 2026-07-25
🎯 Framework Compliance: