Review accounts faster with consistent, evidence-ready scoring today. Prioritize fixes across users, roles, and systems. Reduce audit findings by validating access every quarter properly.
Sample rows show how different teams can score differently based on exposure, control coverage, and review freshness.
| Team | Users | Privileged | Stale % | MFA % | Roles Reviewed % | Days Since Review | Indicative Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finance | 220 | 18 | 4.0 | 98.0 | 85.0 | 60 | Medium |
| Engineering | 480 | 30 | 2.5 | 90.0 | 70.0 | 80 | Medium |
| Support | 160 | 4 | 7.0 | 75.0 | 55.0 | 120 | High |
| IT Operations | 95 | 22 | 3.0 | 88.0 | 60.0 | 45 | High |
| HR | 70 | 3 | 1.0 | 99.0 | 92.0 | 30 | Low |
This calculator computes a weighted risk score from 0 to 100 using normalized control gaps and exposure indicators.
User access review reduces dormant privileges and limits insider risk. Many audits expect quarterly evidence for critical systems. Track total users, privileged users, and stale accounts. Use review age to spot overdue certifications. Frequent reviews also catch role drift after reorganizations.
Privileged concentration increases attack impact. Stale accounts raise takeover probability. Orphaned accounts signal ownership gaps. Segregation of duties conflicts increase fraud risk. Exceptions volume shows policy pressure. Critical app count expands the review surface. Compare privileged ratios across departments and vendors.
MFA coverage lowers credential misuse. PAM coverage reduces admin session abuse. Roles reviewed percentage shows governance completeness. Low coverage should trigger targeted remediation. Raise MFA above 95% for high risk systems. Raise PAM above 80% for administrators. Review break-glass accounts every month.
The calculator converts gaps into a 0 to 100 score. Higher scores suggest shorter review cycles. Low risk may fit semiannual reviews. Medium risk often fits quarterly reviews. High risk benefits from monthly sampling. Use the driver list to explain decisions. Keep signoff evidence with dates and approvers.
Review all privileged accounts first. Disable stale accounts beyond policy thresholds. Assign owners for orphaned accounts. Remove SoD conflicts by redesigning roles. Time box exceptions and require compensating controls. Document approvals with tickets for traceability. Add monitoring for sensitive permissions and shared mailboxes.
Export CSV for spreadsheets and dashboards. Export PDF for audit packets and signoff. Share results with system owners and control teams. Trend scores monthly to show improvement. Lower stale percentage by 50% within two cycles. Reduce exceptions by enforcing standard roles. Report completion rates for each critical application. Audit teams prefer trends.
It summarizes access exposure and control gaps into a 0–100 value. Higher scores indicate weaker governance, larger privileged footprints, and older reviews. Use it to prioritize remediation and determine review frequency.
Run it at least quarterly for critical systems. Use the recommended cadence from the score as a planning baseline. Increase frequency when privileged ratios rise, MFA drops, or exceptions grow.
Start with privileged users, break-glass accounts, and service identities. Then review stale accounts, orphaned accounts, and high-impact roles. Confirm owners, business need, and least privilege.
Higher MFA coverage reduces credential abuse risk. Higher PAM coverage reduces privileged session misuse. Low coverage increases normalized risk components and raises the overall score.
Yes. Run separate calculations per system or application. Keep inputs scoped to that system’s identities and controls. Store exports as evidence for each owner and audit period.
Attach exports plus access lists, approvals, and change tickets. Include review date, reviewer, and decisions. Note exceptions with expiry and compensating controls. Keep artifacts in a controlled repository.