Manager
Certify or flag each of their team's access grants individually.
Quarterly access review means emailing managers a spreadsheet of who-has-access-to-what, and most reviews get rubber-stamped without real scrutiny because the format makes it hard to catch what's actually wrong. Build a review that requires an explicit decision per access grant.
When a manager gets a spreadsheet listing every access grant on their team, scanning row by row for what shouldn't be there is tedious enough that most reviewers just approve the whole thing. Access that should have been revoked months ago quietly persists.
Run access review as a campaign requiring an explicit certify-or-revoke decision on every grant, and revoke automatically what isn't confirmed.
Certify or flag each of their team's access grants individually.
Launch campaigns and process revocations flagged by reviewers.
Review campaign history and certification decisions for compliance evidence.
Campaigns, access grants, certification decisions, revocations.
Campaign scheduling, reviewer reminders, and auto-revocation of unconfirmed access.
Identity/directory systems, and email notifications. See supported integrations.
System-specific review scopes, and campaign frequency by data sensitivity.
Roles and permissions you define, on infrastructure P2HS secures and audits. See security & compliance.
Deploy as a securely hosted application on your own domain. See hosting & domains.
Connect GitHub and keep developing the application yourself. See how code ownership works.
IT and security teams running periodic access certification instead of one-off, ad hoc reviews.
No—it manages the certification and revocation decision. Bring access data from your existing identity or directory system.
Yes—an access-review finding can become a tracked item in risk register management software.
See how access review certification fits into the wider P2HS platform.
Describe the workflow. Review the foundation. Launch it on your own domain.