The Portal Purgatory: When Security Becomes Theater
Imagine this: you're a sysadmin at a major bank. You have an elevated account for privileged tasks—or at least, you used to. Now you still have the account, but the admin rights have been surgically removed. To do literally anything requiring elevation, you need to visit not one, but two separate portals. One to request the password. Another to request the actual permissions. For every single task. Every time.
This isn't hypothetical. It's happening right now in 2025, and the Reddit sysadmin community is sounding the alarm. What's being sold as "enhanced security" looks suspiciously like security theater—a performance that creates the appearance of security while actually making systems less secure through sheer frustration and workarounds.
In this article, we'll explore why this trend is emerging, why it's fundamentally broken, and what organizations should actually be doing instead. If you're dealing with similar policies, you're not alone—and there are better ways forward.
The Anatomy of a Broken System
Let's break down exactly what's happening here, because the devil is in the details. Organizations aren't eliminating privileged accounts entirely—that would actually make some sense from a zero-trust perspective. Instead, they're keeping the accounts but stripping the rights, then requiring multiple approval workflows to temporarily restore them.
Here's the typical flow: First, you need the password for your admin account. But you can't just know it—that would be "insecure." So you go to Portal A, submit a request, wait for approval (maybe automated, maybe manual), and receive a one-time password. Then you need the actual admin rights. So you go to Portal B, submit another request, wait again, and hopefully get temporary elevation.
The problem? This happens every single time you need elevation. Installing software? Two portals. Troubleshooting a service? Two portals. Running a diagnostic tool? You guessed it—two portals. The friction is astronomical.
Why This Is Worse Than It Sounds
From a security perspective, this approach creates several perverse incentives. First, it encourages batch work—"Well, while I have these rights, let me do everything I might need for the next week." This violates the principle of least privilege in practice, even if it follows it on paper.
Second, it creates pressure to find workarounds. I've seen teams share credentials informally ("Just use my request, I already have it approved") or develop shadow systems to bypass the portals entirely. The security team gets their checkbox checked, but actual security decreases.
Third, it destroys productivity. One Reddit commenter estimated they were losing 15-20 minutes per task to portal navigation and waiting. Multiply that by dozens of tasks per week, across an entire IT department, and you're looking at thousands of lost hours annually.
The Psychology Behind the Trend
So why is this happening? In 2025, we're seeing a perfect storm of factors driving this trend. Regulatory pressure is intense—especially in banking, healthcare, and government sectors. Auditors love checkboxes, and "requires dual approval for admin access" looks great on paper.
There's also a fundamental misunderstanding of what "zero trust" actually means. Zero trust isn't about making access difficult—it's about verifying appropriately and granting minimal necessary access. The current trend often represents "zero convenience" rather than true zero trust.
Vendor solutions play a role too. Many Privileged Access Management (PAM) vendors sell their products with promises of "complete control" and "audit trails for every action." What they sometimes deliver is bureaucratic nightmare fuel wrapped in a shiny dashboard. Organizations implement these solutions without considering the human workflow impact.
And let's be honest—there's CYA (Cover Your Ass) culture at play too. If there's a security incident, the CISO can point to the dual-approval system and say "We followed best practices." Never mind that the practice itself might have contributed to the incident through workarounds or delayed responses.
The Real Security Risks Nobody's Talking About
Here's the uncomfortable truth: this approach might actually increase security risks in several ways. First, there's the alert fatigue factor. When every request looks the same (because everyone needs the same basic rights constantly), real anomalies get lost in the noise.
Second, consider emergency situations. When a critical system is down and you need admin access NOW, waiting for portal approvals isn't just inconvenient—it's potentially business-critical. I've seen organizations develop "break glass" procedures that essentially bypass their own security controls, creating shadow systems with even less oversight.
Third, there's the human factor. Frustrated IT staff are more likely to make mistakes. They're also more likely to disengage from security culture entirely—"If they're going to make everything this difficult, why should I care about the rest of it?"
Finally, there's the monitoring gap. With everyone using the same elevated accounts (because individual privileged accounts would mean even more portal requests), attribution becomes impossible. Who made that change at 2 AM? "It was the admin account" tells you nothing.
What Actually Works: Modern PAM Done Right
So if dual-portal purgatory isn't the answer, what is? Modern Privileged Access Management should balance security with productivity. Here's what that actually looks like in 2025.
First, just-in-time access. Instead of permanent admin rights or daily requests, rights are granted automatically for specific tasks, for specific durations, based on policy. Need to restart a service? The system recognizes the legitimate need and grants exactly that permission, for exactly that server, for exactly 5 minutes.
Second, session recording and monitoring. This is where real security happens—not in preventing access, but in monitoring what happens during privileged sessions. Modern solutions can record sessions, detect anomalous behavior, and even intervene in real-time.
Third, granular permissions. Instead of "admin or not admin," systems should support dozens of privilege levels. Maybe you need to install software but not modify system files. Maybe you need to manage services but not access the registry. Modern operating systems support this—we just need to use it.
Fourth, integration with existing workflows. The PAM system shouldn't be a separate portal—it should integrate with your ticketing system, your CI/CD pipeline, your monitoring tools. If a ticket is approved, the access should be too. Automatically.
Automation: The Real Solution to the Elevation Problem
Here's the dirty secret: most routine admin tasks shouldn't require manual elevation at all. In 2025, we have the tools to automate away the majority of privileged tasks that currently send IT staff to portal purgatory.
Consider software deployment. Instead of manually installing updates with elevated rights, use a proper deployment system that handles elevation transparently. Configuration changes? Infrastructure as code. Service management? Automated monitoring and remediation.
The goal should be to reduce the need for manual elevation, not just manage the elevation process. Every task that's automated is a task that doesn't go through the dual-portal gauntlet.
This is where DevOps practices shine. By treating infrastructure as code and implementing proper CI/CD pipelines, you can audit changes before they happen (in pull requests) rather than trying to monitor them during execution. The pipeline has the necessary privileges baked in—securely and transparently.
For tasks that genuinely require human intervention, consider tools that provide temporary, audited access without the portal dance. Some solutions offer browser-based access to systems with privileges automatically elevated based on role and context. The user never sees a password—the system handles authentication and elevation behind the scenes.
Implementing Change: A Practical Guide
If you're stuck in portal purgatory, change might seem impossible. But here's how to start making the case for something better.
First, gather data. Track how much time your team spends requesting access. Calculate the productivity loss. Document any workarounds or shadow systems that have emerged. Numbers speak louder than complaints.
Second, identify specific pain points. Is it emergency access? Routine maintenance? Developer workflows? Be specific about what's broken and how it impacts the business.
Third, propose alternatives. Don't just complain—suggest specific solutions. Maybe it's implementing just-in-time access for certain roles. Maybe it's automating specific frequent tasks. Maybe it's integrating the PAM system with your ticketing system to reduce friction.
Fourth, start small. Propose a pilot program for one team or one type of access. Show measurable improvements in productivity without compromising security—actually, with better security through better auditing and less shadow IT.
Fifth, involve security early. Frame the discussion as "How can we achieve better security with less friction?" rather than "Your security controls are annoying." Security teams want systems to be secure—they often just don't see the operational impact.
Common Objections and How to Address Them
When proposing changes to broken elevation processes, you'll face objections. Here's how to handle them.
"But we need audit trails for compliance!" Modern PAM solutions provide better audit trails than dual-portal systems. Every action is logged with full context—who, what, when, where, and why. Portal approvals just show that someone requested access, not what they did with it.
"We can't give everyone admin rights!" Nobody's suggesting that. The goal is smarter, more granular rights management—not eliminating controls entirely. Just-in-time, least-privilege access is actually more secure than the current approach.
"Our auditors require dual approval!" Maybe. But have you actually asked what they require, or are you assuming? Many compliance frameworks specify what needs to be controlled, not how. There's often flexibility in implementation.
"It's too expensive to change!" Calculate the total cost of ownership of the current system—including lost productivity, shadow IT risks, and emergency bypass procedures. The alternative might be cheaper than you think.
"We tried automation and it failed!" Automation doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Start with the most painful, most frequent tasks. Build confidence gradually.
The Human Element: Why Friction Matters
Here's what security teams often miss: friction isn't just an inconvenience. It's a security risk. Every time you add friction to a legitimate process, you increase the likelihood of workarounds, shadow systems, and disengagement.
Think about password policies. When organizations required 16-character passwords changed every 30 days with complexity rules, what happened? People wrote them down. They used predictable patterns. They reused them across systems. The policy intended to increase security actually decreased it.
The same dynamic is playing out with elevation processes. When legitimate work becomes unbearably difficult, people find illegitimate ways to get it done. They share credentials. They create backdoor accounts. They approve their own requests. They find ways to keep sessions open indefinitely.
Good security design recognizes that humans are part of the system. It aims to make the secure path the easy path—not the difficult one. If your security controls rely primarily on making things difficult, they're probably not as secure as you think.
Looking Ahead: The Future of Privileged Access
Where is this all heading? In 2025 and beyond, I see several trends emerging that might finally kill the dual-portal trend.
First, AI and machine learning are starting to play a role in access decisions. Instead of static rules ("this role gets these rights"), systems can analyze context ("this person is trying to do this task at this time from this location") and make dynamic decisions. Is this normal behavior? Is there an active incident? The system can consider these factors.
Second, we're seeing more integration between identity, access, and operations. Your PAM system talks to your SIEM, which talks to your ticketing system, which talks to your monitoring tools. Access decisions become part of a larger ecosystem rather than isolated checkpoints.
Third, there's growing recognition that developer experience matters for security. If developers can't get their work done securely, they'll find insecure ways to do it. Companies are investing in internal developer platforms that bake security in rather than bolting it on.
Finally, the regulatory landscape is evolving. Frameworks are starting to recognize that effectiveness matters, not just checkboxes. A system that's so cumbersome it's routinely bypassed shouldn't get compliance credit—and increasingly, it won't.
Breaking Free from Security Theater
The dual-portal elevation trend isn't just annoying—it's broken. It represents security theater at its worst: a performance that looks good on paper but actually makes systems less secure while destroying productivity.
The good news? There are better ways. Modern PAM solutions, when implemented thoughtfully, can provide both security and productivity. Automation can eliminate the need for manual elevation entirely for routine tasks. And a focus on human factors can ensure that security controls actually work in practice, not just in theory.
If you're stuck in portal purgatory, start gathering data. Start having conversations. Start proposing alternatives. The trend might be real, but it doesn't have to be inevitable. With the right approach, we can build systems that are both secure and usable—because in the end, those aren't opposing goals. They're the same goal.
Security shouldn't be something you do to IT staff. It should be something you do with them. And that starts with recognizing when "best practices" have become worst practices—and having the courage to try something better.
