Vendor Identity and Access Management Assessment

Every vendor breach starts with compromised credentials. Your third-party risk program needs structured evidence collection for how vendors manage identities and access rights—both for their employees accessing your systems and their controls protecting your data.

A vendor IAM assessment template standardizes this evidence collection process. Rather than asking vague questions about "security measures," you gather specific technical details about password policies, session management, privileged access controls, and identity lifecycle management.

Most TPRM teams waste weeks translating generic security questionnaires into actionable risk data. A purpose-built IAM assessment accelerates control mapping by asking the right questions upfront: Does the vendor enforce MFA for administrative access? How quickly do they deprovision terminated employees? What logging exists for privileged actions?

The assessment results feed directly into your risk tiering decisions. Vendors with mature IAM controls can fast-track through due diligence. Those with gaps require compensating controls or contractual protections before onboarding.

Core Assessment Sections

1. Identity Lifecycle Management

Your assessment must verify how vendors create, modify, and terminate user accounts. Focus on automated provisioning workflows, approval chains for access requests, and termination procedures.

Evidence to collect:

• Account provisioning SLAs and approval documentation
• Termination checklists showing access revocation timeframes
• Role-based access control (RBAC) matrices
• Periodic access review schedules and sample reports

Red flags: Manual provisioning processes, no formal deprovisioning procedure, access reviews conducted less than quarterly for privileged accounts.

2. Authentication Controls

Document the vendor's authentication stack across all system tiers. Weak authentication remains the primary attack vector for supply chain compromises.

Critical evidence points:

• Password complexity requirements and rotation schedules
• MFA enforcement policies by user type
• SSO implementation and protocol support (SAML, OAuth, OIDC)
• Session timeout configurations
• Account lockout thresholds

Minimum acceptable baseline: MFA required for all administrative access, SSO for enterprise applications, passwords meeting NIST 800-63B guidelines.

3. Privileged Access Management (PAM)

Privileged accounts represent your highest risk exposure. The assessment must drill into how vendors secure administrative, service, and system accounts.

Key controls to verify:

• PAM tool deployment and coverage
• Privileged session recording capabilities
• Just-in-time access procedures
• Service account password vaulting
• Break-glass account procedures

4. Access Governance and Segregation of Duties

Map how vendors prevent toxic access combinations and enforce least privilege principles.

Assessment focus areas:

• Segregation of duties matrices for critical functions
• Access certification processes and tooling
• Entitlement management procedures
• Role mining and optimization practices

Industry-Specific Requirements

Financial Services

FFIEC authentication guidance mandates layered security for high-risk transactions. Your IAM assessment must verify:

• Risk-based authentication implementation
• Out-of-band verification for wire transfers
• Continuous authentication for trading platforms
• PCI DSS 8.x control mapping for payment processors

Healthcare

HIPAA requires unique user identification (45 CFR 164.312(a)(2)(i)) and automatic logoff (164.312(a)(2)(iii)). Assess:

• Clinical application timeout settings
• Biometric authentication for prescribing systems
• Audit trails for PHI access
• Role definitions aligned to minimum necessary standards

Technology/SaaS

API security and developer access create unique IAM challenges. Evaluate:

• API key rotation procedures
• OAuth scope definitions
• Developer environment access controls
• CI/CD pipeline authentication

Compliance Framework Mapping

SOC 2 CC6.1 - Logical Access Controls

Map vendor responses to:

• User registration and authorization
• Password management controls
• System access modification procedures
• Periodic access reviews

ISO 27001 A.9 - Access Control

Align assessment questions to:

• A.9.1.1 Access control policy
• A.9.2.1-6 User access management
• A.9.4.1-5 System and application access control

NIST 800-53 AC - Access Control Family

Structure evidence collection around:

• AC-2 Account Management
• AC-3 Access Enforcement
• AC-7 Unsuccessful Login Attempts
• AC-11 Session Lock

Implementation Best Practices

1. Pre-assessment scoping: Define which vendor systems require IAM assessment based on data classification and integration type. SaaS platforms with API access need deeper scrutiny than vendors processing only public data.

2. Evidence validation: Don't accept policy documents as sufficient evidence. Request screenshots of IAM configurations, sample audit logs, and access review reports.

3. Risk-based question sets: Tier your assessment depth by vendor criticality. Critical vendors answer 50+ detailed questions. Low-risk vendors complete a 15-question subset.

4. Automated scoring: Build scoring rubrics that automatically calculate risk ratings based on control gaps. Weight authentication controls higher than governance processes.

Common Implementation Mistakes

Over-relying on attestations: Vendors often claim MFA enforcement without technical implementation. Require evidence of actual MFA enrollment rates and enforcement policies.

Ignoring service accounts: Human user controls mean nothing if service accounts use hardcoded passwords. Explicitly assess non-human identity management.

Missing cloud IAM: Traditional IAM assessments miss cloud-native identity providers. Include AWS IAM, Azure AD, and Google Cloud Identity in scope.

Static assessments: IAM configurations change rapidly. Schedule quarterly evidence updates for critical vendors, annual for standard vendors.

Generic risk ratings: "Low/Medium/High" ratings provide no actionable intelligence. Quantify specific control gaps: "No MFA for many admin accounts" drives better risk decisions than "Medium authentication risk."

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I handle vendors who claim IAM details are confidential?

Require NDAs upfront and offer to accept redacted evidence that still demonstrates control implementation. If vendors refuse all evidence sharing, document this as a critical finding that prevents risk assessment.

Should I assess vendor IAM differently for cloud vs on-premise deployments?

Yes. Cloud vendors should demonstrate native cloud IAM controls (AWS Organizations, Azure AD Conditional Access). On-premise vendors need evidence of traditional directory services and PAM tools.

What's the minimum viable IAM assessment for low-risk vendors?

Focus on five controls: MFA for admin access, password complexity, account termination process, access reviews, and privilege escalation procedures. This 15-minute assessment catches major gaps.

How do I assess IAM for vendors in countries with different regulatory requirements?

Map local regulations (GDPR, LGPD, PIPEDA) to your baseline controls. Most international standards align on core IAM principles. Document where local law creates specific requirements.

Can I use the same IAM assessment for IT vendors and non-IT vendors?

Modify depth, not structure. Non-IT vendors may have simpler IAM needs, but still assess their access to your systems and data. A marketing agency needs IAM controls for your brand portal access.