A security administrator is tasked with improving the employee offboarding process. Currently, the process relies on a manual checklist for disabling user accounts, which has led to several instances of delayed de-provisioning. Which of the following would be the MOST effective solution to mitigate the risk of unauthorized access by former employees?
Implement a stricter manual review process with multiple sign-offs.
Conduct weekly audits of active user accounts against the current employee roster.
Automate the de-provisioning of user accounts based on triggers from the HR system.
Enforce a policy for immediate password changes upon employee termination notification.
Automating the de-provisioning of user accounts based on triggers from an HR system is the most effective solution. This approach ensures that access is revoked promptly and consistently as soon as an employee's status changes in the authoritative source (the HR system), which significantly reduces the risk of human error or delays inherent in manual processes. While stricter manual reviews, immediate password changes, and periodic audits are all valid security controls, they do not address the root cause of the problem as effectively as automation. Audits are a detective control, whereas automation is a preventative control that stops the issue from occurring.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
Why is automation more effective than manual processes in user account de-provisioning?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What role does the HR system play in automated user de-provisioning?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How do preventative controls differ from detective controls in this context?