After working closely with over 100 organizations—from Fortune 500 enterprises to small startups—and spending hundreds of hours in discussions with customers and prospects at Axiom, we’ve developed a structured approach that simplifies least privilege implementation. This experience has shaped our 3 Scopes Approach—a phased roadmap designed to minimize friction and maximize adoption across any organization. By dividing roles and responsibilities into three clear scopes—Core Access, On-Demand Access, and Just-in-Time Access—this method ensures smoother, more efficient, and more successful least privilege rollouts.
This is the first article “Scope 1 – New Problems, New Approaches: From Job Functions to Use Cases” of a 3-part series “3 Scopes to Success: A Phased Paved Road Approach to Least Privilege Rollout” that will guide you through each phase of the 3 Scopes Approach and provide practical steps to implement lasting least privilege within your organization.
Why Not Use RBAC and Simple Job Function Roles?
Traditional Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) defines access by static job roles. For example, a “Database Administrator” gets full access to databases, regardless of how often they need it. The problem? This approach doesn’t account for the dynamic nature of modern operations, where almost all access can be considered privileged.
When users need to update customer records or scale a system, they often require admin-level access. RBAC blurs the lines between regular and admin privileges, leading to overly broad roles that are hard to manage.
Here’s a use case for you: “I’m just trying to do my job!” said the developer to their amazing security team, after realizing they need full admin access just to update a minor config in their source control. In the end, what makes an admin role privileged is the ability to execute specific administrative tasks and use cases!
Here’s a snapshot of what the typical RBAC approach looks like:
Example Traditional RBAC Table
System or Data | Job Function/Role | Privileges |
Production Database | Database Administrator | Full access to create, update, delete, and read customer records |
Data Warehouse | Data Scientist | Read access to datasets, execute models |
CI/CD Pipeline | DevOps Engineer | Full access to deploy code, manage pipelines, run tests |
Financial Records | Finance Analyst | Read and update access to generate reports, manage financial records |
Support Ticketing System | Support Engineer | Full access to view and resolve support tickets |
Reporting Dashboard | Business Analyst | Read access to generate business intelligence reports |
Why This Approach Fails
While RBAC worked well in simpler environments, it falls short in today’s complex systems:
- Static Job Roles: Access is tied to broad job functions, forcing security teams to constantly create new roles for every minor variation.
- Excessive Privileges: Users get more access than they need, increasing the risk of misuse or breaches.
- Lack of Flexibility: Users often need temporary access for specific tasks, but RBAC doesn’t easily support this.
For example, a support engineer needing temporary access to a database to troubleshoot an issue would either get full access (risky) or no access (unproductive). It’s a lose-lose situation.
The Transition to a Use-Case Approach
Here’s where the use-case approach shines. Instead of granting access based on job functions, it’s task-driven. Access is given dynamically based on what users need to do, how often they need it, and the sensitivity of the data involved. This reduces risk, aligns with modern workflows, and provides more flexibility.
ABAC? Not Quite.
Sound familiar? Did someone say ABAC? Well, kind of—but not exactly. The use-case approach shares some similarities with Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC), but without the headache. ABAC tries to control access with a ton of confusing attributes—”Department,” “Favorite Color,” or “Is Unicorn?” (okay, maybe not that last one)—leaving security teams scratching their heads, wondering why a policy isn’t working.
The use-case approach keeps things straightforward: no cryptic attributes, just concrete tasks. Instead of managing access by layering multiple attributes that might not even make sense to the user, you focus directly on what needs to get done—reading, writing, modifying, or deleting—and grant access accordingly.
Use-Case Approach Table
System or Data | Use Case | Access Level (Read, Modify, Create, Delete, Admin) | Teams/Users |
Production Database | Monitor real-time database performance | Read | Engineering, DevOps |
Data Warehouse | Run experiments, model training | Read, Execute | Data Scientists, ML Engineers |
CI/CD Pipeline | Deploy code, manage build pipelines | Modify, Execute | DevOps Engineers, Developers |
Financial Records | Generate reports, review transactions | Read, Modify | Finance, Auditors |
Support Ticketing System | Resolve customer tickets, update records | Modify, Create | Support Engineers |
Reporting Dashboard | Generate and analyze business reports | Read | Business Analysts, Data Analysts |
Why the Use-Case Approach Works
The use-case approach offers clear advantages over RBAC:
- Task-Specific Access: Access is tailored to the actual tasks a user performs, minimizing unnecessary privileges.
- Minimized Risk: By granting access based on need rather than role, users don’t get excessive permissions.
- Flexibility: Access can be adjusted dynamically. Temporary or one-time access for specific tasks? Easy.
- Alignment with Operations: Use cases mirror real-world workflows, allowing access that matches how work is done, not based on predefined job functions.
From RBAC to Use-Case Mapping
Transitioning from RBAC to use-case-driven access starts with an Access Matrix. This matrix helps assess the sensitivity, frequency, and specific use cases for different systems and data. With this foundation, you can leave behind static roles and begin granting access based on real-world tasks.
Scope Matrix Example
System or Data | Risk/Sensitivity | Frequency | Use Cases |
Production Database | High – Potential for data loss or security breach | Daily – Continuous monitoring | Monitor performance, troubleshoot issues |
Data Warehouse | High – Exposure of proprietary data | Weekly or Monthly – Data science activities | Run experiments, train models |
CI/CD Pipeline | Medium – Misconfiguration could disrupt deployments | Daily – Development and deployment | Deploy code, manage pipelines |
Financial Records | Critical – Breach could result in legal consequences | Monthly or Quarterly – Financial audits | Generate reports, review transactions |
Support Ticketing System | Medium – Customer data must be kept private | Daily – Resolving support tickets | View, update, resolve support tickets |
Reporting Dashboard | Low – Data is typically aggregated/anonymized | Daily – Regular reporting | Generate and analyze business reports |
What’s Coming Next in This Series?
In the next two articles, we’ll dive deeper into how to break down access into these manageable scopes and implement them strategically to minimize friction and maximize security.
- Article 2: Scopes, Scopes Everywhere! Building 3 Scopes for Effective Rollout
In this article, we’ll guide you through the 3 Scopes—Just-in-Time Access, Core Access, and Just-In-Time Access—and show how organizing access this way makes least privilege rollouts smoother and more efficient. You’ll learn how to reduce user friction while achieving measurable security improvements. - Article 3: Hit Them Where It Doesn’t Hurt: Cherry-Pick the Right Rollout Plan
The final article will focus on the strategy behind rolling out least privilege. We’ll show you how to start with low-stakes users and gradually move toward higher-risk roles, ensuring a smooth phased rollout. Real-world success stories will demonstrate how this approach leads to lasting security wins with minimal disruption.