User Access Reviews: Process, Best Practices & Checklist

Today’s business reality is that access doesn't always evolve with users. Employees leave roles, contractors finish assignments, and third parties wrap up engagements, but only a handful of accounts get disabled, or users retain too much privilege. Each of these gaps creates privilege creep, orphaned accounts, and failures of audits. This is a sweet spot for insider threats or attackers. This is where User Access Reviews (UARs) come into play.

A user access review, also known as a user access audit, is the planned, periodic verification to ensure that a user has the appropriate access aligned with their current role and responsibilities. It is a review of the access rights of employees and third-party users, including contractors, vendors, and partners. A user access review typically consists of reviewing who has access to which systems, applications, and data then modifying access if necessary when business needs change. User access reviews ensure a user maintains the least privilege necessary by revoking stale, unused, or unnecessary entitlements.

A user access review contributes to a solid identity and access management (IAM) strategy. By putting visibility and control at the center of access governance, user access reviews link security, compliance, and operational efficiency to protect sensitive systems and data.

From a compliance aspect, UARs are more than best practice requirements; they have become a requirement, since all major regulatory frameworks require UARs, such as SOX, SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR, etc. From a security perspective, UARs help organizations eliminate unseen risks and continually enforce least privilege.

In this blog, we’ll break down what UARs are, why they matter, and provide a step-by-step process that you can use to strengthen your access governance program.

Key Takeaways

• UAR helps avoid unauthorized access and minimize privilege creep.
• It ensures regulatory compliance (SOX, SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR, PCI DSS).
• Disables orphaned accounts and closes gaps left from changes in employee roles or leavers.
• Reviews enforce least privilege, improving defenses against insider threats and credential-based attacks.
• Automated review processes increase audit readiness by having documented repeatable processes for review.
• UARs leverage automation and IGA tools to reduce manual effort in periodic reviews.
• Streamlined reviews enhance operational efficacy as a whole by reducing administrative overhead.

What is a User Access Review

A user access review (UAR) is a structured process that organizations utilize to confirm that each user's access rights are appropriate for their current job and responsibilities. Simply put, it answers the following question: Does this person need this level of access anymore, and if not, why do they have it?

Fundamentally, a UAR ensures that only the right people are granted the right access to the right resources, and nothing more. By regularly reviewing user access across systems and applications, organizations can identify and remediate any access privileges that no longer align with their job duties prior to any security/compliance incidents occurring.

User access reviews serve some major purposes:

• Increasing security by reducing risks related to credential misuse, privilege creep, and orphaned accounts.
• Supporting compliance with regulatory acts that require periodic user access reviews, such as SOX, SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and GDPR.
• Ensuring least privilege by making it easier to know that users have the minimum amount of access they need to do their job, not excessive access.
• Cleaning up accounts by identifying unused, duplicate, or unnecessary entitlements that can clutter identity systems and also represent risk.

When conducted periodically, and using a good solution, UARs can mitigate the opportunity for unauthorized access while streamlining audits, improving hygiene, and enabling a stronger identity governance framework.

User Access Review Example

To to appreciate the role of user access reviews in practice, consider the common Joiner-Mover-Leaver model found in the real world:

Joiners – When a new employee or contractor joins, they should receive the role-related access that they need and nothing more. One of the biggest mistakes that is made is over-provisioning access; granting broad access so an employee can hit the ground running.

Movers – Employees who move from one role to another often keep all of their previous access, in addition to the access associated with the new role. This building of access over time is called privilege creep, and it means unnecessary risk to otherwise sensitive systems.

Leavers – Accounts of former employees, contractors, or partners who have left, and remain active in some systems, presents one of the largest insider threat risks. Accounts may be dormant, or in fact actively abused by malicious actors.

Conducting a user access review ensures that these scenarios are consistently reviewed; the joiners only receive exactly what they need, movers will have their access appropriately updated in line with their responsibilities, and leavers will have their access revoked in a timely manner across all systems.

Why are User Access Reviews Important?

User access reviews are more than a simple review activity to be done during an audit; they are the first line of defense to avoid security breaches, compliance failures, and operational inefficiencies. By validating if users have only the access needed, organizations minimize their risk exposure and maintain better control of their sensitive systems and data.

1. Reduce Security Risks

One of the foremost threats organizations currently encounter is privilege creep, a phenomenon in which employees build access rights over time and do not revoke old ones. If that's not an afterthought, orphaned accounts created by former employees or contractors will provide an opening for malicious insiders or even external attackers.
Regular user access reviews help minimize these risks by ensuring users' access rights are appropriate and revoking permissions that are unnecessary. This proactive cleanup of access reviews diminishes the attack surface area and provides a low likelihood of unauthorized access.

2. Ensure Regulatory Compliance

Regulatory compliance with standards like SOX, HIPAA, GDPR, PCI DSS, SOC 2, and ISO 27001 is not optional but a legal and business necessity. Each framework sets expectations on who can access sensitive data and how often that access must be reviewed:

• SOX requires quarterly checks to protect the integrity of financial reporting.
• HIPAA mandates strict access reviews to safeguard patient health information.
• GDPR demands ongoing proof that personal data is only accessed by authorized users.
• PCI DSS enforces access reviews every six months to secure cardholder data.
• SOC 2 requires SaaS providers to demonstrate quarterly access governance.
• ISO 27001, though not a law, is a widely recognized certification where UARs serve as evidence of strong security controls.

Failing to meet these standards can mean not only heavy fines but also reputational loss, customer distrust, and even criminal penalties. Regular user access reviews provide the evidence you need to pass audits, reduce risk, and prove that access is tightly controlled.

3. Improve Operational Efficiency

Manual access reviews can be overwhelming, time-consuming, and subject to human error. Organizations can reduce the administrative burden significantly just by leveraging automation and centralizing access data. With the right identity governance solutions, review teams can quickly identify discrepancies between roles and access rights, take corrective actions, and generate reports ready for audit in minutes. This is important not only because it saves IT and compliance teams time, but it also allows business operations to operate more smoothly with less disruption than would be otherwise.

Types of User Access Reviews

Not all access reviews are the same. Organizations follow different review methodologies based on regulatory responsibilities, risk tolerances, level of operational maturity, etc. However, generally, user access reviews can be categorized into three types: periodic, event-based, and continuous.

1. Periodic Reviews

These are the most common types of user access review. Organizations typically perform periodic reviews quarterly, every six months, or annually. The benefit of periodic reviews is that they provide a regularized opportunity to retrospectively review all user accounts and permissions against some type of defined policy. Periodic Reviews are advantageous in providing evidence of regular oversight where compliance regulations require organizations to show compliance. However, as periodic reviews happen at a defined regularity, you do not detect risks in between periodic reviews.

2. Event-Driven Reviews

Event-driven reviews are initiated as a result of changes to user status, such as a role change, a department transfer, or termination. In contrast to periodic reviews, these reviews are more specific and guarantee that any access is granted or taken away quickly when someone changes roles. This would mitigate the possibility of maintaining excessive permissions over time and maintaining least privilege access in a timely manner.

3. Continuous Reviews

The most advanced model is continuous access review facilitated by automation and identity governance tools. Continuous reviews do not wait for a scheduled review or user change event, but use behavioral triggers, anomaly detection, and automated policy enforcement to continuously validate access. While more advanced tools are required for this strategy, this will offer the most protection against privilege creep and other insider threats.

The User Access Review Process (Step-by-Step)

Effectively managing user access reviews requires a structured, repeatable process. A defined framework to follow fosters consistency, allows for accuracy, and acts as credible evidence for any audit activities. Here is a step-by-step outline of how organizations typically conduct user access review activities.

Step 1 – Define Scope & Stakeholders

The first step is to understand what systems, applications, and user groups will be included in the review. This includes everything from cloud-based services and SaaS applications to on-premise servers and databases. The goal is to create a comprehensive list of assets that require regular access reviews, ensuring that sensitive data across all platforms is adequately protected. Some organizations may want to assess access for all employees, whereas others may want to include only privileged accounts or high-risk systems. At this point, the organization should have a solid understanding of who its stakeholders are, such as managers, IT administrators, compliance officers, and auditors, who will be part of or oversee this process.

Step 2 – Collect & Centralize Access Data

Once the scope is well defined, the second step involves collecting access data from various systems. This usually means accessing multiple systems, including your HR records, IAM platform, Active Directory, on-prem systems, and cloud-based applications. By combining all of this information into a single view, reviewers can eliminate silos of information and understand who has access to what.

Step 3 – Determine Review Frequency

Prior to reviewing permissions, organizations must determine how often user access should be reviewed. The frequency of user access review is dependent on the sensitivity of the data reviewed and or if regulatory requirements must be followed. For example, reviews on public cloud resources could be annual (if they are not sensitive) or critical financial or healthcare systems may have to be quarterly. Consider this time-boxing of reviews can include: local accounts, third-party or contractor access, and non-human identities such as service accounts and machine identities, so you will have a comprehensive understanding of all identity access points.

Step 4 – Review Permissions vs. Roles

Reviewers can now examine the access data for compliance against employee roles or functions. This will show misalignments such as:

• Users granted excessive privileges beyond their job functions
• Accounts are still active for former employees or contractors
• Permissions that no longer align with job functions At this stage, compliance principles such as least privilege and segregation of duties (SoD) enter the conversation.

Step 5 – Revoke or Adjust Access

Based on the findings, reviewers approve the access as-is or recommend changes. In the case of misaligned permissions, this means terminating unnecessary access entirely or changing the access entitlements so as to more closely align their permissions with the requirements of the job. The amount of manual work in this process can be substantially lessened, and the remediation can be done in a timely fashion, while fully automating the process through IGA (Identity Governance and Administration) tools.

Step 6 – Document & Report

Regardless of the approval or changes specified for the individual, organizations need to document their review decisions, and the decisions need to be made into audit-ready reports. Each of these records will serve two different functions.

• To demonstrate compliance with regulations that vary from SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley), HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), ISO 27001, etc.
• Continually assess and improve the repeat patterns of access issues to continuously revise and enhance policies.

Step 7 – Remove Unnecessary Access

When access reviews uncover users with unnecessary permissions or users who have excess access privileges outdated privileges, prompt corrective measures should be taken. This may include removing access for terminated employees, contractors, or users no longer performing relevant job duties. Or perhaps the access has been adjusted to smaller and/or more manageable levels to match their current job functions.

Step 8 – Re-Run & Validate Access Lists

The final step involves generating a new set of access reports to verify user permissions have been updated as intended. This review ensures that the remedial actions were performed and it improves both security and compliance.

Best Practices for Effective Reviews

Even with a process established, user access reviews can still be entangled in inefficiencies, inconsistency, or human error. A well-established best practice will validate that reviews are compliant and efficient, while reducing pressure from your IT and business teams.

1. Automate Where Possible

In large companies, it can be tough not to be overwhelmed by manual reviews. Automate the process with IGA tools to aggregate access data, identify anomalies, and streamline and approve workflows. Tools such as Identity Confluence will minimize repetitiveness and keep the reviews on schedule, reducing resource waste.

2. Apply the Principle of Least Privilege

Reviews should not just ask the question of whether access is legitimate, but also whether we need you to have access. The principle of least privilege ensures users are left with only the access they need to perform their jobs. This can be a great way to minimize your attack surface, prevent privilege creep, and help with your overall security posture.

3. Maintain an Access Review Checklist

Consistency is key. A good checklist allows reviewers to have a defined process to follow (and reduces the chance of missing something critical). A checklist should include things like user roles, business justification, SoD conflicts, approval workflows, etc. A checklist also helps keep audits much simpler.

4. Train Reviewers Regularly

Most managers and reviewers do not have a strong understanding of IAM or compliance requirements. Regular training sessions help them identify suspicious access patterns, understand risks, and make decisions based on a sound foundation. Just as regularly trained reviewers will be more engaged in the process, training also lessens the pressure they may have to simply approve requests to save time when they didn't understand what they were approving.

5. Keep an Audit Trail

Every access review should create a clear, auditable record of decisions, rationales, and actions. Audit trails not only fulfil regulatory needs, but also serve internal security teams. In case of an incident, audit trails will be very useful as a proactive defense demonstrating that due diligence was followed.

Common Challenges and How to Overcome Them

Even organizations with mature IAM programs may struggle with the execution of user access reviews due to scale, complexity, and lack of visibility. When organizations proactively address challenges, they can ensure reviews are meaningful versus being merely compliance-driven.

1. Time-consumption and Resource-consumption

User access reviews can be very time-consuming, particularly if they are done manually across hundreds or thousands of users (and thousands of distinct permissions). Inevitably, the reviewer suffers from fatigue, and approval is granted in haste.

How to overcome: Automation through IGA solutions, which can prepopulate with access data, make it easy to see anomalies, and make recommendations. This will reduce manual effort and allow reviewers to focus their time on higher-risk cases.

2. Inconsistent systems and siloed data

A lot of enterprises today have multiple applications, cloud platforms, and some legacy systems, each with its own access model. Without centralized visibility, access reviews become disjointed and inconsistent.

How to overcome: Consider integrating systems into a single governance platform that centralizes access data. The centralized view will make it significantly easier to accurately see overprovisioning, identify privilege creep, and maintain consistent review policies across the organization.

3. Lack of visibility toward user roles and permissions

Reviewers find it difficult to approve or deny a permission because the role it belongs to is not clear, as there are old definitions between roles, misaligned roles, etc. Reviewers may unintentionally rubber-stamp approvals, resulting in over-permissiveness.

How to overcome: Keep access inventories up-to-date as well as role-based policies that are clearly defined. Provide reviewers with contextual information such as who else has similar access and why. This will lead to better decision-making and less exposure risk.

Compliance Standards That Require UARs

User access reviews constitute more than a security best practice. They are a compliance obligation in many of our global regulations and industry standards. If your organization is not regularly performing UARs, it may expose your organization to findings in an audit, fines, and legal liability.

1. SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley Act)
   SOX applies to all U.S. public companies and international firms registered with the SEC. It requires strict internal controls for financial reporting, and Section 404 mandates that access to financial systems is tightly managed. Regular UARs demonstrate that only authorized users can view or modify financial data, reducing fraud risk and supporting audit requirements.

2. SOC 2
   Organizations looking for SOC 2 attestation must demonstrate they have strong access controls around sensitive customer data. Periodic UARs are the proof that access is reasonable and adheres to the principle of least privilege.

3. ISO 27001
   The global security framework explicitly requires organizations to review user rights at regular intervals. Auditors will need to see a documented access review process, as well as documented evidence of remediations and exceptions.

4. HIPAA
   Healthcare organizations must limit access to electronic protected health information (ePHI). User access review is vital for fulfilling some of HIPAA’s access control and audit requirements.

5. GDPR
   The EU's General Data Protection Regulation requires the organization to be able to show that it has implemented technical and organizational measures to secure personal data, and access reviews provide evidence of accountability and prevention of unauthorized access.

6. PCI DSS
   PCI DSS governs all organizations handling payment card data. To protect cardholder environments, access must be restricted to individuals with a valid business need. Requirement 8.1.6 requires reviewing user access rights at least every six months. Performing UARs ensures compliance while minimizing the risk of data breaches and fraudulent activity.

User Access Review Tools & Templates

Running access reviews manually with spreadsheets and email threads might work for a small team, but things quickly get out of hand when you scale. For organizations experiencing rapid growth, you need to be able to automate, standardize, and ensure accuracy and efficiency, as well as auditing readiness.

User Access Review Tools
Modern Identity Governance and Administration (IGA) platforms eliminate the time clinic access reviews can take via streamlining all access information into one place and automating some or all of the workflows. When evaluating tools, make sure it has some key capabilities, such as:

• Automated reminders and approvals so that fatigue and missed deadlines are not part of your review process.
• Role-based access mapping contrasts what permissions a user has against defined job functions.
• Ability for integrations with HR and IT systems so that reviews can happen on an event-driven basis (i.e., role changes, terminations).
• Audit-ready reports that will help to prove compliance during regulatory inspections.

Common categories of tools include:

• IGA solutions (like Okta, TechPrescient)
• Access review specific platforms (like ConductorOne, SecurEnds)
• Privileged access management (PAM) tools, which some organizations may deploy to manage high-risk accounts.

User Access Review Templates Templates provide structure and consistency across reviews. A well-designed template will show:

• Scope of the review (application, system, privileged accounts).
• Reviewer roles and responsibilities (manager, system owner, compliance officer).
• Access data fields (user, role, permissions, justification).
• Decision outcomes (approved, revoked, escalated).
• Documentation checklist for auditability.

Many organizations create access review templates in Excel or PDF, but if you're looking for scalability long-term, the best option is to embed those templates into your Integration Governance and Administration platform as templates, so they can be standardized and enforced.

💡Pro tip: Combine tools with templates. Automation handles the heavy lifting, while templates ensure the review process is structured, consistent, and audit-ready.

Visual Checklist of User Access Reviews

Final Thoughts

User access reviews have moved from simply being a compliance activity to being a frontline defense against a data breach, insider threat, and abuse of privilege. They confirm that users have only as much access as they need, and therefore, close one of the most common security gaps - over-permissioned users and orphaned accounts.

When user access reviews are automated and combined with a robust identity governance program, they become much more than an auditing exercise. Organizations can enforce least privilege continuously, decrease administrative overhead, as well as have an all-around more effective identity governance program. Whether that means meeting regulatory standards for SOX or HIPAA, or just trying to exert more control over sensitive systems, planned and scheduled user access reviews are the bedrock of a complete cybersecurity strategy.

In the long run, organizations that routinely put effort into user access reviews are not only compliant but also have a defensive posture to be proactive about - having the ability to ensure that access always remains appropriate, auditable, and secure.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What are the risks of not performing user access reviews?

By not doing user access reviews, organizations expose themselves to several risks. Employees or contractors can keep unnecessary access for many months or even years after a change in role or departure, which can result in insider threats or unintentional exposure of data. It can also contribute to more opportunities for compliance issues during audits. Additionally, attackers can exploit orphaned or over-privileged accounts, which can lead to significant breaches and costs.

2. How often should user access reviews be done?

The frequency of user access reviews will depend on the regulatory requirements in your situation, as well as the level of sensitivity of the data being handled. As a rule of thumb, many organizations conduct user access reviews quarterly or semiannually for compliance purposes. In cases of high-risk environments, such as finance or healthcare, it may be necessary to conduct more frequently or constantly. User access reviews should always be conducted as soon as possible at the time of an event, such as a role change, promotion, or termination.

3. What is the difference between an access review and a user access review?

While both terms are related, there is an important difference. An access review is a more generalized activity that evaluates access rights across applications, systems, and data, while a user access review confirms that every person's access rights are adequate for their current job duties, which aligns with the principle of least privilege and mitigates risk.

4. What tools can help with user access reviews?

Identity Governance and Administration (IGA) solutions are the best way to automate reviews. TechPrescient’s Identity Confluence and similar applications collect data automatically, map entitlements to roles, and offer clear workflows for managers to approve or deny access. That saves time, and more importantly, audit readiness with generated reports and logs.

5. What should a user access review checklist include?

A full checklist would include:

• Scope - which applications, systems, and user groups will be included
• Data collection - compiling access information across all requisite systems
• Review criteria - determination of what’s appropriate access vs. excessive access based on roles
• Corrective actions - the mechanism to either revoke or amend access that is deemed inappropriate
• Documentation - the pathway to preserve the review findings, approvals, etc., as an audit trail