CERT-In directions and current audit expectations require demonstrable proof of controlled access through 180 days of security logs and timestamps. Multiple industry reports indicate elevated malware activity across several Indian regions as tier-2 expansion accelerates digital adoption – for instance, 265 million malware detections across 8+ million endpoints in 2025 that threat teams track India-linked indicators of compromise in 2025.
IP-only visibility fails in hybrid networks, leading the regulators to map risks beyond IP logs because IP addresses no longer cleanly map to a single user, device, or location. In many such set-ups, employees share the same VPN, NAT, gateways, and cloud, so one IP can represent hundreds of users.
Today, auditors increasingly expect location-aware risk mapping across distributed operations. For instance, auditors may expect mapping risks across Maharashtra, Bihar, and Manipur to show how an organization protects high-stakes operations in the BFSI and power sector. User-to-role mapping, current vendor access list, and periodic access review reports are needed as audit evidence, including approvals, removals, and exceptions, and clear accountability with an expectation of periodic review. Additionally, RBI scrutiny has intensified for privileged access, service accounts, and vendor identities. Owing to the shifts, auditors demand evidence. They want to see proof that shows impossible travels, such as quick login detections from two faraway locations ( geo-velocity anomalies).
A closed-loop workflow combining ‘Identity Threat Detection & Response (ITDR)’ and ‘Extended Detection & Response (XDR)’ converts threat signals into actions while generating time-synchronized audit logs, where auditors and regulators can trace the full chain of events from detection to resolution.
Identity-driven incidents, despite ‘full compliance’, lack drills, highlighting a new protective insight saying paper compliance doesn’t stop real attackers. Sector mandates and CERT-In expectations make it almost compulsory for the teams to test identity takeover scenarios, privilege abuse, and vendor compromise paths. It helps test scenarios where tools fail due to a lack of practice, decision-making, and rollback under pressure. Audits today are asking for drill reports, evidence of fixing of closure, and lessons learned – not just buying platforms.
Work from anywhere requires controls based on behavior, as the same user can seem different across different types of devices. Today, auditors seek the Gangtok-to-Kanpur shift response and expect abnormal shift detection. The shift in device posture, login velocity, and privilege usage helps enforce adaptive checks without breaking business flow. DPDP (Digital Personal Data Protection) compliance adds another layer of privacy, minimum data collection, and clear retention logs to justify what has been stored and why. Adding different locations like Pune operations, access such as Manipur field access, and portals such as vendor portals makes identity governance tighter.
Identity now has become a frontline security control and a continuous evidence layer. IP-only visibility and annual reviews don’t hold up in hybrid environments. In 2026, Auditors expect time-correlated trails and demonstrable access governance along with proof of detection and closure response. The organisations that combine least privilege, closed-loop identity driven response and continuous access review will reduce risk while producing defensible evidence CERT In-aligned audits, DPDP obligations and RBI scrutiny.
Reference links –
