Safeguard 5.6: Centralize Account Management

Safeguard 5.6 requires you to centralize account management so identity lifecycle actions (create, change, disable, delete) are controlled from an authoritative system, not scattered across apps and administrators. Operationalize it by setting an identity source of truth, integrating key systems to it, enforcing standard joiner/mover/leaver workflows, and retaining recurring evidence that accounts are governed centrally. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Key takeaways:

• Choose and document one authoritative identity system (or tightly governed pair) and make it the control point for provisioning and deprovisioning. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)
• Integrate high-risk and high-impact systems first, then expand coverage with a defined exception process for edge cases. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)
• Build audit-ready evidence: system configs, workflow records, access reviews, and exception logs that show centralized operation over time. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Centralizing account management is a control-design decision that changes how access works day to day. If your enterprise still provisions accounts through local admins, one-off tickets, or ad hoc scripts across multiple systems, you will struggle to prove that access is consistently governed, timely removed, and traceable to an approved request. Safeguard 5.6 targets that failure mode by pushing you toward a single operational model: one authoritative place to manage identities, and integrations or controlled workflows that ensure downstream systems follow it. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

For a CCO or GRC lead, the fastest path is to treat this as an “operating control” with observable behaviors, not a policy statement. Your exam-readiness hinges on whether you can show: (1) what system is authoritative, (2) which systems are connected to it, (3) what happens when someone joins, changes roles, or leaves, and (4) how you detect and fix drift when local accounts appear outside the central process. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

This page gives requirement-level implementation guidance you can hand to IAM, IT, and Security Operations and then audit against.

Requirement: safeguard 5.6: centralize account management requirement

Objective: Reduce unauthorized access, orphaned accounts, and inconsistent controls by managing accounts from a central authority with standard workflows and traceable approvals. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Plain-English interpretation

Centralize account management means:

• You define an authoritative identity source (commonly an IdP/IAM platform backed by HR or a contractor management system).
• Systems that matter (email, VPN, core apps, cloud consoles, ticketing, code repos, finance) get accounts through that central authority, not through local “create user” clicks.
• The organization runs joiner/mover/leaver processes so access follows role changes and termination events reliably.
• You keep evidence that the central system is actually being used, and you have an exception path for systems that cannot integrate. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

If you cannot integrate a system, the requirement still expects governance: documented compensating steps, approvals, and monitoring for local accounts that bypass central control. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Regulatory text

Excerpt (as provided): “CIS Controls v8 safeguard 5.6 implementation expectation (Centralize Account Management).” (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

What the operator must do: Implement account provisioning and lifecycle management through a centralized mechanism, document how it operates, and produce recurring evidence that accounts across in-scope systems are controlled through that centralized process. Map the safeguard to a defined control and evidence capture routine so you can demonstrate ongoing operation in an assessment. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Who it applies to

Entity scope

• Enterprises and technology organizations adopting CIS Controls v8 as a control baseline, maturity target, or audit criterion. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Operational context (where auditors focus)

Centralized account management is examined most closely where any of the following are true:

• You have multiple SaaS platforms with separate admin panels.
• You support remote access (VPN, VDI, cloud shells).
• You have privileged admin roles in cloud/IaaS, CI/CD, or production systems.
• You use third parties (MSPs, consultants, contractors) who need time-bound access.
• You have regulated data where access changes must be timely and provable.

What you actually need to do (step-by-step)

Step 1: Define the authoritative identity model (make a decision you can defend)

1. Name your source of truth for identity (HRIS for employees, vendor/contractor system for non-employees, or a governed directory that ingests both).
2. Name your central account control plane (IdP/IAM directory, SSO platform, or IGA tool) that will orchestrate provisioning and deprovisioning.
3. Document boundaries: which identities are in-scope (employees, contractors, service accounts) and which systems are in-scope (tiered by risk). (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Operator tip: Auditors accept hybrid designs when you clearly define authority. Confusion happens when HR says one thing, IT provisions another way, and app admins do a third. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Step 2: Build a system inventory and pick integration priorities

1. Create (or update) an application and platform inventory with fields: owner, auth method (SSO/local), provisioning method, privileged roles present, and data sensitivity.
2. Classify systems into:
   • Tier 1: infrastructure, admin consoles, security tooling, finance, production.
   • Tier 2: business-critical apps with sensitive data.
   • Tier 3: low-risk internal tools.
3. Decide your onboarding order and define what “centralized” means per tier (for example: SSO-only vs SSO + SCIM provisioning). (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Step 3: Standardize joiner/mover/leaver workflows

Implement documented workflows with clear control points:

• Joiner: identity created from authoritative source; baseline access assigned via groups/roles; higher-risk access requires separate approval.
• Mover: role change triggers access reevaluation; old entitlements removed; new entitlements granted through the same central mechanism.
• Leaver: termination triggers disablement; sessions revoked where possible; access tokens/keys invalidated per your process; downstream accounts deprovisioned or disabled. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Minimum operational requirement: one workflow path. Avoid “some teams email IT” as a parallel provisioning lane.

Step 4: Integrate provisioning and deprovisioning where possible

1. Turn on SSO for authentication centralization (reduces password sprawl).
2. Add automated provisioning (SCIM/API connectors) for systems that support it.
3. Where automation is not feasible, implement a ticket-driven manual workflow that still originates in the central process and is monitored for completion. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Control design point: Centralization is about lifecycle governance, not just login. SSO alone helps, but it may not remove accounts or entitlements in the target system.

Step 5: Control and monitor exceptions (systems you cannot centralize yet)

Create a formal exception path:

• Business justification and system constraints
• Named owner
• Compensating controls (manual provisioning checklist, separate approval, periodic review, and monitoring for orphaned accounts)
• Expiration date and remediation plan (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Track exceptions in a register that GRC can audit.

Step 6: Prove ongoing operation with recurring evidence capture

You need a repeatable evidence routine:

• Monthly or quarterly exports showing account sources, status changes, and deprovisioning actions from the central platform.
• Periodic reconciliation reports: “accounts in app” vs “accounts in central directory,” with remediation tickets for drift.
• Review artifacts for privileged groups/roles and service accounts. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

This is where many programs fail: they build central IAM, but do not retain assessor-grade proof that it runs continuously.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep artifacts in a GRC repository with versioning and timestamps:

Design evidence (what you intended)

• Identity and access management standard describing the authoritative source and account lifecycle process. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)
• System inventory with authentication/provisioning methods and owners. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)
• Joiner/mover/leaver workflow diagrams or SOPs, including approval points. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)
• Exception register template and current exception list. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Operating evidence (what actually happened)

• Provisioning/deprovisioning logs from the central platform (exports or screenshots with dates).
• Sampled tickets or workflow records for joiner/mover/leaver events (include approvals and completion).
• Reconciliation/drift reports and remediation tickets.
• Access review outputs for high-risk groups (privileged/admin groups, break-glass accounts, service accounts). (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Mapping evidence (assessment readiness)

• A control narrative that maps “Safeguard 5.6” to your control owner, tooling, frequency of operation, and evidence list. This directly supports the recommended practice of documented control operation and recurring evidence capture. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Daydream fit (earned mention): Daydream helps teams convert safeguard 5.6 into an auditable control record with recurring evidence requests, ownership, and a clean mapping between the requirement and the artifacts you already produce.

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Auditors usually ask variations of:

1. “What is your authoritative source of identity?” Be ready to name it and show how records flow to the central directory. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)
2. “Show me how a termination disables access everywhere.” Expect sampling. Provide workflow evidence plus downstream confirmations for key systems. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)
3. “Which systems are not centrally managed, and why?” Produce the exception register with compensating controls. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)
4. “How do you detect local accounts created outside the process?” Show reconciliations, alerts, and remediation records. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)
5. “How do you manage contractors and third parties?” Show how non-employee identities are created, time-bounded, and deactivated. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake	Why it fails assessments	What to do instead
Treating SSO as “centralized account management”	Accounts still exist locally; deprovisioning may not happen	Add automated provisioning/deprovisioning where feasible; reconcile where not. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)
Multiple “sources of truth” with no governance	Conflicting identity states cause orphaned access	Document authority and precedence rules; enforce a single workflow entry point. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)
No exception process	Unmanaged apps become permanent gaps	Create an exception register with owners, compensating controls, and a remediation plan. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)
Weak evidence retention	Control may exist but cannot be proven	Implement recurring evidence capture tied to the safeguard and store artifacts centrally. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)
Ignoring service accounts and API tokens	Persistent credentials bypass user lifecycle	Inventory service accounts, assign owners, and manage lifecycle/rotation under central governance. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Risk implications (what goes wrong if you miss this)

Failure to centralize account management commonly results in:

• Orphaned accounts after terminations
• Excess access after role changes
• Inconsistent MFA/SSO enforcement
• Difficulty proving access governance during audits
• Increased blast radius when credentials are compromised

CIS positions this as a practical safeguard to reduce those operational access failures. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

No enforcement timelines are provided in the CIS source material, so treat these phases as an execution blueprint you can adapt to your environment. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

First 30 days (stabilize governance)

• Appoint control owner(s): IAM lead for build, GRC for evidence, IT/security for operations.
• Decide and document the authoritative identity model and central control plane.
• Build the system inventory with auth/provisioning details and rank systems by risk.
• Draft joiner/mover/leaver SOPs and an exception register format.
• Set up a recurring evidence capture routine aligned to Safeguard 5.6. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Days 31–60 (implement for Tier 1 systems)

• Turn on SSO for Tier 1 systems where feasible.
• Implement automated provisioning/deprovisioning for the easiest Tier 1 integrations first.
• For remaining Tier 1 systems, enforce ticketed provisioning originating from the central process.
• Begin drift detection: compare downstream accounts to the central directory and open remediation items.
• Pilot privileged group governance: ownership, approvals, and review outputs. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Days 61–90 (expand coverage and harden operations)

• Extend integrations to Tier 2 systems; tighten exception governance for anything still outside.
• Add monitoring alerts for high-risk events (new local admin, dormant accounts, bypass accounts).
• Run a formal operating effectiveness check: sample joiner/mover/leaver events and confirm evidence quality.
• Finalize the control narrative and assessment package mapped to Safeguard 5.6. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

Frequently Asked Questions

Does SSO alone satisfy safeguard 5.6: centralize account management requirement?

SSO centralizes authentication, but it may not centralize account lifecycle actions like creating and removing accounts. Aim for central provisioning/deprovisioning or a controlled manual workflow plus reconciliation where automation is not possible. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

What counts as “centralized” if we have both HR and an IdP?

That is normal: HR can be the authoritative source for employment status while the IdP/IAM system is the operational control plane for access. Document the authority boundaries and make downstream systems follow the control plane for account actions. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

How should we handle third-party and contractor accounts?

Create non-employee identities through a governed intake process, assign an owner, and apply time-bound access with a deactivation trigger when engagement ends. Retain evidence of approvals and offboarding actions. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

What evidence is most persuasive to an auditor?

Time-stamped workflow records showing joiner/mover/leaver events, logs/exports from the central platform, and reconciliation outputs that detect and fix accounts created outside the central process. Pair those with a control narrative mapped to Safeguard 5.6. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

We have legacy systems that cannot integrate with our IAM tools. Are we automatically noncompliant?

No, but unmanaged exceptions create assessment risk. Put legacy systems into a documented exception process with compensating controls, monitoring, and a plan to reduce reliance on local accounts over time. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)

How do we operationalize evidence capture without burning out engineering teams?

Define a recurring evidence set that can be exported from systems of record and collected by GRC on a schedule. Tools like Daydream can track owners, request artifacts, and maintain a clean audit trail tied to Safeguard 5.6. (CIS Controls v8; CIS Controls Navigator v8)