We Already Have a UEM — Why Is Identity Still a Problem?

Having endpoint control does not eliminate identity risk. UEM and IdP serve different security functions, and device management alone cannot enforce authentication, authorization, or adaptive access policies. Even with strong Unified Endpoint Management  in place, identity remains a primary attack surface if it is not independently governed.

Why doesn’t device management solve Identity security?

Unified Endpoint Management focuses on controlling devices. It enforces compliance policies, configures security settings, pushes patches, and monitors endpoint health. However, identity attacks do not require a compromised device. Attackers target:

• Stolen credentials
• Phishing campaigns
• Session hijacking
• Privilege escalation
• Misconfigured access controls

A compliant device does not guarantee that a user is legitimate. UEM verifies the endpoint. It does not validate user intent or continuously evaluate authentication risk. This creates a gap between device trust and identity trust. Over 80% of cyberattacks rely on identity-based attack methods, highlighting why enterprises invest in IAM and identity protection solutions.

Where do UEM and IdP responsibilities differ?

Understanding the distinction between device management and identity management clarifies the problem:

UEM responsibility

• Device enrollment
• Compliance enforcement
• Patch and configuration management
• Endpoint visibility

IdP responsibility

• User authentication
• Multi-factor authentication enforcement
• Role-based access control
• Conditional access evaluation
• Session governance

Without an identity provider, organizations lack centralized authentication control and adaptive access enforcement. This is where identity security challenges persist even in mature UEM environments.

How do Identity gaps impact security posture?

When identity is not tightly governed:

• Compromised credentials can bypass device controls
• Access may persist after role changes
• Privileged accounts may lack step-up authentication
• Conditional access policies cannot be enforced consistently

Zero Trust requires verification of both user and device. UEM validates the device state. An IdP validates the user and access context. Without both layers, security remains incomplete.

Strengthening Identity beyond device control

Hexnode IdP extends device management by centralizing authentication and enforcing conditional access policies. While Hexnode UEM validates endpoint compliance, Hexnode IdP controls who can access applications and under what conditions. By combining identity verification with real-time device posture insights, IT teams can apply adaptive MFA and instantly restrict risky sessions. This unified model bridges device control and identity governance without increasing operational complexity.

FAQs

1. Isn’t UEM enough if devices are compliant?

No. Device compliance confirms endpoint health, not user legitimacy or session risk.

2. Can identity threats occur on managed devices?

Yes. Phishing and credential compromise can occur regardless of device compliance.

3. Do UEM and IdP need to be integrated?

For strong Zero Trust enforcement, integration between UEM and IdP improves contextual access decisions.