Which concept is valid in the implementation of Separation of Duties (SoD)?

The principle of Separation of Duties (SoD) is essential in identity and access management to mitigate risks associated with fraud and error. Preventing conflicting access combinations is a fundamental aspect of SoD because it ensures that no single individual has the ability to both initiate and approve a transaction. This separation helps to create checks and balances within an organization, reducing the likelihood of malicious actions or unintentional mistakes.

By preventing conflicting access, organizations can enforce controls that require multiple individuals to be involved in sensitive processes. For instance, an employee who creates a purchase order should not also have the authority to approve that order. This separation not only helps in fraud prevention but also enhances compliance with regulatory requirements.

In contrast, allowing conflicting access combinations would ultimately undermine the integrity of the SoD principle, making it easier for individuals to exploit their access rights. Enforcing SoD only during audits would miss the continuous oversight necessary to maintain a secure environment. Finally, relying on manual processes to implement SoD can lead to inconsistencies and human error, which could compromise security. Thus, the most effective approach is to systematically prevent conflicting access combinations as a core practice of identity management.