Account Sharing

A subject deliberately shares credentials for non-personal, persistent service accounts (e.g., admin, automation, deployment) with other individuals, either within or outside their team. These accounts often lack individual attribution, and when shared, they create a pool of untracked, unaccountable access.

Service account sharing typically emerges in high-pressure operational environments where speed or convenience is prioritized over access hygiene. Teams may rationalize the behavior as necessary to meet deployment deadlines, maintain uptime, or circumvent perceived access bottlenecks. In other cases, access may be extended informally to external collaborators, such as contractors or partner engineers, without proper onboarding or oversight.

When service account credentials are distributed, they become functionally equivalent to a shared key—undermining all identity-based controls. Investigators lose the ability to reliably associate actions with individuals, making forensic attribution difficult or impossible. This gap often delays incident response and enables repeated policy violations without detection.

Service accounts also frequently carry elevated privileges, operate without MFA, and are excluded from normal UAM logging, compounding the risk. Their use in this manner represents not just a technical misstep, but a structural breakdown in control integrity and accountability. In environments with compliance obligations or segmented access controls, service account sharing is a critical investigative red flag and should trigger formal review.

Routine reviews of user accounts and their associated privileges and permissions should be conducted to identify overly-permissive accounts, or accounts that are no longer required to be active.

When an employee leaves the organization, a formal process should be followed to ensure all equipment is returned, and any associated accounts or access is revoked.

Mandatory security awareness training for employees can help them to recognize a range of cyber attacks that they can play a part in preventing or detecting. This can include topics such as phishing, social engineering, and data classification, amongst others.

An Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) is a set of rules outlining acceptable and unacceptable uses of an organization's computer systems and network resources. It acts as a deterrent to prevent employees from conducting illegitimate activities by clearly defining expectations, reinforcing legal and ethical standards, establishing accountability, specifying consequences for violations, and promoting education and awareness about security risks.

Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) is a critical component of a comprehensive security strategy, providing an additional layer of defense by requiring more than just a password for system access. This multi-layered approach significantly reduces the risk of unauthorized access, especially in cases where an attacker has obtained or guessed a user’s credentials. MFA is particularly valuable in environments where attackers may have gained access to user credentials via phishing, data breaches, or social engineering.

For organizations, enabling MFA across all critical systems is essential. This includes systems such as Active Directory, VPNs, cloud platforms (e.g., AWS, Azure, Google Cloud), internal applications, and any resources that store sensitive data. MFA ensures that access control is not solely dependent on passwords, which are vulnerable to compromise. Systems that are protected by MFA require users to authenticate via at least two separate factors: something they know (e.g., a password), and something they have (e.g., a hardware token or a mobile device running an authenticator app).

The strength of MFA depends heavily on the factors chosen. Hardware-based authentication devices, such as FIDO2 or U2F security keys (e.g., YubiKey), offer a higher level of security because they are immune to phishing attacks. These keys use public-key cryptography, meaning that authentication tokens are never transmitted over the network, reducing the risk of interception. In contrast, software-based MFA solutions, like Google Authenticator or Microsoft Authenticator, generate one-time passcodes (OTPs) that are time-based and typically expire after a short window (e.g., 30 seconds). While software-based tokens offer a strong level of security, they can be vulnerable to device theft or compromise if not properly secured.

To maximize the effectiveness of MFA, organizations should integrate it with their Identity and Access Management (IAM) system. This ensures that MFA is uniformly enforced across all access points, including local and remote access, as well as access for third-party vendors or contractors. Through integration, organizations can enforce policies such as requiring MFA for privileged accounts (e.g., administrators), as these accounts represent high-value targets for attackers seeking to escalate privileges within the network.

It is equally important to implement adaptive authentication or risk-based MFA, where the system dynamically adjusts its security requirements based on factors such as user behavior, device trustworthiness, or geographic location. For example, if a subject logs in from an unusual location or device, the system can automatically prompt for an additional factor, further reducing the likelihood of unauthorized access.

Regular monitoring and auditing of MFA usage are also critical. Organizations should actively monitor for suspicious activity, such as failed authentication attempts or anomalous login patterns. Logs generated by the Authentication Service Providers (ASPs), such as those from Azure AD or Active Directory, should be reviewed regularly to identify signs of attempted MFA bypass, such as frequent failures or the use of backup codes. In addition, setting up alerts for any irregular MFA activity can provide immediate visibility into potential incidents.

Finally, when a subject no longer requires access, it is critical that MFA access is promptly revoked. This includes deactivating hardware security keys, unlinking software tokens, and ensuring that any backup codes or recovery methods are invalidated. Integration with the organization’s Lifecycle Management system is essential to automate the deactivation of MFA credentials during role changes or when an employee departs.

Training should equip employees to recognize manipulation tactics, such as social engineering and extortion, that are used to coerce actions and behaviors harmful to the individual and/or the organization. The training should also encourage and guide participants on how to safely report any instances of coercion.

Provide a process for all staff members to report concerning and/or suspicious behaviour to the organization's security team for review. An internal whistleblowing process should take into consideration the privacy of the reporter and the subject(s) of the report, with specific regard to safeguarding against reprisals against reporters.

Privileged Access Management (PAM) is a critical security practice designed to control and monitor access to sensitive systems and data. By managing and securing accounts with elevated privileges, PAM helps reduce the risk of insider threats and unauthorized access to critical infrastructure.

Key Prevention Measures:

Least Privilege Access: PAM enforces the principle of least privilege by ensuring users only have access to the systems and data necessary for their role, limiting opportunities for misuse.

• Just-in-Time (JIT) Access: PAM solutions provide temporary, on-demand access to privileged accounts, ensuring users can only access sensitive environments for a defined period, minimizing exposure.
• Centralized Credential Management: PAM centralizes the management of privileged accounts and credentials, automatically rotating passwords and securely storing sensitive information to prevent unauthorized access.
• Monitoring and Auditing: PAM solutions continuously monitor and log privileged user activities, providing a detailed audit trail for detecting suspicious behavior and ensuring accountability.
• Approval Workflows: PAM incorporates approval processes for accessing privileged accounts, ensuring that elevated access is granted only when justified and authorized by relevant stakeholders.

Benefits:

PAM enhances security by reducing the attack surface, improving compliance with regulatory standards, and enabling greater control over privileged access. It provides robust protection for critical systems by limiting unnecessary exposure to high-level access, facilitating auditing and accountability, and minimizing opportunities for both insider and external threats.

Establish and maintain formal, well-communicated pathways for personnel to request resources, report deficiencies, or propose operational improvements. By providing structured mechanisms to meet legitimate needs, organizations reduce the likelihood that subjects will bypass policy controls through opportunistic or unauthorized actions.

Implementation Approaches

• Create clear, accessible request processes for technology needs, system enhancements, and operational support requirements.
• Ensure personnel understand how to escalate unmet needs when standard processes are insufficient, including rapid escalation pathways for operational environments.
• Maintain service-level agreements (SLAs) or expected response times to requests, ensuring perceived barriers or delays do not incentivize unofficial action.
• Integrate feedback mechanisms that allow users to suggest improvements or report resource shortfalls anonymously or through designated representatives.
• Publicize successful examples where formal channels resulted in legitimate needs being met, reinforcing the effectiveness and trustworthiness of the system.

Operational Principles

• Responsiveness: Requests must be acknowledged and processed promptly to prevent frustration and informal workarounds.
• Transparency: Personnel should be informed about request status and outcomes to maintain trust in the process.
• Accountability: Ownership for handling requests must be clearly assigned to responsible teams or individuals.
• Cultural Integration: Leaders and supervisors should reinforce the use of formal channels and discourage unsanctioned self-remediation efforts.

An agent capable of User Activity Monitoring (UAM) is a software agent installed on organization endpoints (such as laptops); typically, User Activity Monitoring agents are only deployed on endpoints where a human user Is expected to conduct the activity.

The User Activity Monitoring agent will typically record Operating System, application, and network activity occurring on an endpoint, with a focus on activity that is or can be conducted by a human user. The purpose of this monitoring is to identify undesirable and/or malicious activity being conducted by a human user (in this context, an Insider Threat).

Typical User Activity Monitoring platforms operate in an agent/server model where activity logs are sent to a server for automatic correlation against a rule set. This rule set is used to surface activity that may represent Insider Threat related activity such as capturing screenshots, copying data, compressing files or installing risky software.

Other platforms providing related functionality are frequently referred to as User Behaviour Analytics (UBA) platforms.

An agent capable of User Behaviour Analytics (UBA) is a software agent installed on organizational endpoints (such as laptops). Typically, User Activity Monitoring agents are only deployed on endpoints where a human user is expected to conduct the activity.

The User Behaviour Analytics agent will typically record Operating System, application, and network activity occurring on an endpoint, focusing on activity that is or can be conducted by a human user. Typically, User Behaviour Analytics platforms operate in an agent/server model where activity logs are sent to a server for automatic analysis. In the case of User Behaviour Analytics, this analysis will typically be conducted against a baseline that has previously been established.

A User Behaviour Analytic platform will typically conduct a period of ‘baselining’ when the platform is first installed. This baselining period establishes the normal behavior parameters for an organization’s users, which are used to train a Machine Learning (ML) model. This ML model can then be later used to automatically identify activity that is predicted to be an anomaly, which is hoped to surface user behavior that is undesirable, risky, or malicious.

Other platforms providing related functionality are frequently referred to as User Activity Monitoring (UAM) platforms.

Custom or pre-built detection logic can be used to determine if a user account has authenticated from two geographic locations in a period of time that is not feasible for legitimate travel between the locations.

Implement User Behavior Analytics (UBA) tools to continuously monitor and analyze user (human) activities, detecting anomalies that may signal security risks. UBA can track and flag unusual behavior, such as excessive data downloads, accessing a higher-than-usual number of resources, or large-scale transfers inconsistent with a user’s typical patterns. UBA can also provide real-time alerts when users engage in behavior that deviates from established baselines, such as accessing sensitive data during off-hours or from unfamiliar locations. By identifying such anomalies, UBA enhances the detection of insider events.