How to Evaluate Non-Human Identity and AI Agent Security Platforms: A Buyer's Guide

Introduction

To evaluate a non-human identity security platform, require that it discovers every non-human identity and AI agent, ties each one to an accountable human owner, enforces least privilege at runtime, and can remediate risk across your full estate. Then prove each of those in a proof of concept (POC) on your own systems.

This guide gives security and identity leaders a vendor-neutral checklist for that decision. It covers what to require, what to test, and the red flags to avoid, and it does not rank named vendors.

The timing matters. Gartner named agentic AI the top technology trend of 2025 and predicted 33% of enterprise apps will include agentic AI by 2028, up from less than 1% in 2024, as cited by the World Economic Forum.

Key Takeaways

• Non-human identity security governs service accounts, API keys, tokens, and AI agents, which now far outnumber human users in most enterprises.
• A strong platform discovers every non-human identity, including shadow and homegrown agents, and ties each one to a named human owner.
• Least privilege and just-in-time access limit what each identity can do, and continuous certification rechecks access as risk changes.
• Remediation matters as much as detection, so the platform should fix risk at its source, not only report it.
• Oak argues the strongest platforms govern agents and service accounts in the same graph as people, instead of adding a separate point tool.

What Is Non-Human Identity Security?

A non-human identity (NHI) is any account that acts without a person logging in. Examples include a service account, an API key, a token, a machine identity, or an AI agent. Non-human identity security is the practice of discovering, governing, and controlling these identities and what they can reach.

AI agent identity governance is the part of that work focused on autonomous agents that plan and act on their own.

These identities differ from human ones in basic ways. A person logs in, passes multi-factor authentication (MFA), holds a session, and can be challenged. An NHI has none of that, runs continuously, and rarely gets retired on time.

The volume is the reason this became urgent. According to Entro Security Labs' H1 2025 data, NHIs have grown by 44%, and they now outnumber human identities at a ratio of 144 to 1, a major leap from the 92 to 1 ratio seen in H1 2024.

Why Traditional IAM Falls Short for AI Agents and Service Accounts

Traditional identity and access management (IAM) assumes an interactive login, MFA, a session, and a person you can challenge. Agents and service accounts have none of these, so the controls that keep humans in check do not apply. This creates an attribution gap: when a non-human identity acts, it is hard to trace the action back to the accountable human.

Standing access is the second problem. Non-human identities are granted broad permissions once and rarely lose them, so entitlements pile up. According to CyberArk's 2025 Identity Security Landscape, a Vanson Bourne survey of 2,600 security decision-makers published in April 2025, there are 82 machine identities for every human in organizations worldwide, and 42% of machine identities have privileged or sensitive access.

Oak argues that legacy identity systems were built for humans and bolt agents on afterward, which is part of why Oak was built. Oak names four gaps it targets in those systems:

• Identity fragmentation across many disconnected tools.
• Periodic reviews driven by static rules.
• Blind spots around service accounts and AI agents.
• Visibility into risk without the ability to fix it.

In Oak's view, quarterly reviews tell you what happened, never what is happening.

The Core Capabilities to Require in a Non-Human Identity Security Platform

Use the access path and identity lifecycle as your frame, from creation to retirement. Require each capability below, then test it in your own environment, not on a vendor's demo data.

Discovery and Inventory of Every Identity

Require the platform to discover every non-human identity and agent, including shadow, homegrown, SaaS, and custom ones, into one inventory with context. Context means the owner, the purpose, the permissions, and the systems each identity touches. Visibility is the baseline most organizations still lack.

According to a 2023 Osterman Research study commissioned by Silverfort, only 5.7% of organizations have full visibility into their service accounts. Ask how the platform reaches homegrown and on-prem systems, not just popular SaaS apps. Oak's ConnectAny layer is designed to connect any system and onboard it in days rather than quarters.

Accountable Ownership for Every Agent and Service Account

Every non-human identity needs a named human owner, a stated purpose, and an expiration date. Ownership makes accountability possible when an identity's behavior drifts. Without it, no one can say whether an action was intended or who should respond.

Discovery-only tools list identities but stop short of ownership. Oak ties each agent to an accountable human in one living graph as part of its AI agent identity governance. Require the platform to assign, track, and enforce ownership, not just produce a list.

Least Privilege and Just-in-Time Access

Require scoped, time-bound credentials that are issued when a task starts and revoked when it finishes. This is the least privilege principle applied to machines: grant only the access needed, only for as long as it is needed.

Just-in-time (JIT) access is the mechanism. Instead of a permanent key, the identity requests access for a specific task, uses it, and gives it back. Oak describes the goal of this design as "less standing access."

Formal processes remain rare. According to the Cloud Security Alliance survey of 818 respondents in June 2024, only 20% of organizations have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys.

Secure Credential and Secrets Handling

Require short-lived, issued-and-rotated credentials over persistent keys stored in code or config files. A secret that never changes is a standing risk, because anyone who copies it keeps access indefinitely. Ask how the platform issues, rotates, and expires credentials automatically.

The sprawl is growing fast. According to GitGuardian's State of Secrets Sprawl 2026, 28.65 million new hardcoded secrets were added to public GitHub commits in 2025 alone, a 34% increase year over year.

Runtime Authorization and Continuous Certification

Require authorization decisions made at execution time, based on context and intent, not just a role assigned months ago. Runtime authorization asks, at the moment of action, whether this identity should do this thing right now. That is stronger than a static role check.

Pair it with continuous certification. A quarterly review is a snapshot; continuous, risk-driven continuous access certification re-checks access as risk changes. Oak's view is that quarterly reviews tell you what happened, never what is happening.

Auditability and Remediation Across the Full Estate

Require a full audit trail for every action: who initiated it, which agent ran it, the policy decision, the credential, and the destination. But an audit trail only records risk; the platform must also fix it.

Remediation across the full estate is the differentiator. Oak states that it remediates from the source the moment an identity deviates. That targets the "see but can't fix" gap it names in legacy tools.

Map your requirements to a known risk model. The OWASP Non-Human Identities Top 10 ranks Improper Offboarding, Secret Leakage, and Overprivileged NHI among the top risks. Confirm the platform can revoke access in real time, not file a ticket.

What a Non-Human Identity POC Should Prove

A demo shows the happy path. A POC should prove the platform works on your hardest systems and real identities, so run it against your own environment and require evidence.

• Key point: Test on your own shadow and homegrown identities, because vendor demo data hides the coverage gaps that matter most.
• Key point: Ask how much migration work falls on your team, and whether the vendor offers hands-on implementation support during the POC.

Red Flags to Watch For in a Vendor Demo

Watch for these signs that a platform governs less than it claims:

• Agents can only be registered manually, so shadow and homegrown agents stay invisible.
• Delegation is vague, and the tool cannot show which human is accountable for an agent's action.
• Authorization is coarse, relying on broad role-based access control (RBAC) with no runtime context.
• Observability is stitched together from other tools instead of one live inventory.
• There is no real-time revocation, only tickets and manual cleanup.
• The platform detects risk but cannot remediate it at the source.
• Privileged access is defined only for humans, leaving service accounts and agents ungoverned.

How Financial Services and Regulated Firms Should Evaluate Coverage

Regulated firms must prove governance to auditors, so evaluation should map to your reporting obligations. Focus on two things auditors ask for: who owns each non-human identity, and evidence that risky access was found and fixed.

Regulation reaches automation indirectly. DORA (Regulation EU 2022/2554) has applied to EU financial entities since 17 January 2025. It requires them to manage information and communication technology (ICT) risk, including risk from third-party ICT service providers.

DORA does not name non-human identities directly, but the credentials and automated services those providers use fall inside its ICT-risk scope. Require a platform that can show governance and remediation for those identities.

Conclusion

Evaluate a non-human identity security platform on five things: discovery of every identity, accountable ownership, least privilege with just-in-time access, runtime authorization backed by continuous certification, and remediation across your full estate. Then prove each one in a POC on your own systems. The platforms that pass govern agents and service accounts in the same place as people, and they fix risk rather than only reporting it.

Want to see this evaluated against your environment? Get a demo.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a non-human identity?

A non-human identity is any account that acts without a person logging in, such as a service account, an API key, a token, a machine identity, or an AI agent. These identities run continuously, often act on behalf of a person or system, and now far outnumber human users in most enterprises.

How is agentic IAM different from traditional IAM?

Traditional IAM assumes an interactive login, MFA, a session, and a person you can challenge, but agentic IAM governs AI agents and service accounts that have none of those. It relies on discovery, accountable ownership, just-in-time credentials, and runtime authorization to control what autonomous identities can reach and do.

What should a non-human identity security POC prove?

A POC should prove the platform works on your own systems, not demo data. Test discovery of shadow and homegrown agents, confirm each identity gets a named human owner, verify just-in-time revocation end to end, check connector coverage on a hard system, and confirm the platform remediates risk, not just detects it.

How do financial services firms govern non-human identities?

Financial services firms should tie every non-human identity to an accountable owner and keep auditable evidence that risky access was found and fixed. Under DORA, EU financial entities must manage ICT risk, including third-party providers, so their automated services and credentials need governance that produces audit-ready proof.

Is a secrets manager enough to secure AI agents?

A secrets manager stores and rotates credentials, but it does not discover shadow agents, assign accountable owners, authorize actions at runtime, or remediate risk across your estate. Securing AI agents needs full identity governance, so treat a secrets manager as one component rather than a complete non-human identity security platform.