Here's why CyberArk Managers aren't required to grant Vault access

Who holds the keys to the CyberArk Vault?

If you’ve spent any time around privileged access management, you’ve heard the same idea echoed in different ways: the Vault is powerful, but the real strength lies in who can open it. In CyberArk, access to the Vault isn’t granted willy-nilly. It’s controlled by groups that each have a distinct job to do. The aim is simple: give people just enough permission to do their work, then log, monitor, and review what happens after the fact.

Let’s map out the key players you’ll encounter in this space, and why some are essential for giving access while others aren’t.

The essential players: Administrators, Users, and Auditors

• CyberArk Administrators

Think of the Administrators as the “systems engineers” of the Vault. They configure the Vault, manage policies, set up user accounts, and adjust permissions. They’re the ones who can say who has access to which credentials, and under what conditions. In other words, they set the rules of engagement. Without Administrators, the Vault would be a set of locks with no one to authorize new keys or adjust security controls. So, yes—Administrators are a core part of granting access. They’re the engineering backbone that keeps policies consistent and enforceable.

• CyberArk Users

These are the people who actually use the Vault to do the work that relies on those credentials. They might be developers, operators, or system administrators who need access to specific passwords, keys, or secrets to perform their jobs. Users are essential because, at the end of the day, a Vault’s value comes from legitimate, authorized usage. It wouldn’t be useful if there were no trusted hands who could leverage the stored secrets when needed.

• CyberArk Auditors

Auditors play the governance role. Their job is to watch activity, verify that access and usage comply with policies, and surface any unusual patterns. They’re the eyes that confirm the system is behaving as it should—no sneaky escalations, no credential exfiltration, no orphaned accounts. Auditors help organizations demonstrate compliance and maintain trust with stakeholders, regulators, and customers.

Why CyberArk Managers aren’t required to grant access

• CyberArk Managers

So what about Managers? In a lot of setups, you’ll hear about governance, oversight, or delegation of duties. A Manager might oversee a team, approve requests, or help with workload distribution. But when it comes to actually granting access to the Vault, Managers aren’t a required element in the core access chain. Their role is more about stewardship and decision-making at a higher level, rather than directly controlling who can open a credential vault. That’s why, in practical terms, they aren’t a necessary block in the access-granting process.

It’s a subtle but important distinction. The Vault needs to be precise and auditable in who can access what, when, and under what policy. That’s the realm of Administrators, Users, and Auditors. Managers can sit in the governance layer—reviewing approval queues, ensuring teams have appropriate coverage, and aligning access with risk posture—but they aren’t a mandatory gatekeeper for access itself.

How access is typically granted: a practical flow

If you’re responsible for provisioning access in a CyberArk environment, here’s a straightforward way it often unfolds, keeping things clear and auditable:

• Policy first, access second

Policies define who can do what. They spell out which credentials are accessible, by whom, and under what conditions. This is the backbone. Administrators set and revise these policies so they’re consistent across teams and use cases.

• Request and approval

A user requests access to a credential or set of credentials. The request is evaluated against the policy, and an approval workflow is triggered. The governance layer might involve a Manager for sign-off, or it might route directly to an Administrator depending on the organization’s structure. The key is that approvals are documented.

• Access provisioning

Once approved, the system grants access according to the policy. This could mean providing a vault entry, a time-bounded credential, or a scoped permission that’s limited to the exact task at hand. The principle of least privilege is worth repeating here: give only what’s needed, nothing more.

• Usage and monitoring

Auditors keep an eye on how credentials are used. This includes who accessed what, when, and what actions were taken. Logs should be complete, searchable, and tamper-evident. If something looks off, alerts can trigger investigations.

• Review and renewal

Access isn’t a one-and-done deal. Periodic reviews ensure that permissions remain appropriate as teams change, projects shift, or security requirements evolve. This is where governance becomes a living, breathing process.

Real-world scenarios: a few quick pictures

• Scenario 1: A new microservice needs a set of credentials

An administrator might program a policy that allows the development team to request secrets for the new service. A Developer requests access, an Approver (who could be a Manager or a designated role) signs off, and the system provisions time-limited access. Auditors keep a watchful log, ensuring the usage patterns align with the policy.

• Scenario 2: Incident response and rotation

If a credential is suspected of compromise, an administrator can revoke access, rotate the secret, and reissue it under tighter controls. Auditors review the incident trail afterward to confirm proper containment and response.

• Scenario 3: Compliance-driven access governance

Regulators or internal governance bodies might require quarterly reviews. Administrators report on who has access to which vault resources, while Auditors validate that the evidence matches the log records.

Common pitfalls to avoid

• Too broad access

One of the classic missteps is granting broad access because it’s easier in the moment. That can create a bigger attack surface. The aim is precise assignments—identities aligned with the credentials they actually need.

• Silent drift

When approvals and reviews lag, permissions can drift. People move roles, projects shift, and what was once necessary becomes stale. Regular reviews prevent drift from becoming a blind spot.

• Inadequate auditing

If log data isn’t complete or immutable, you lose the ability to trace events. Ensure that every access, request, and action is captured with integrity and clarity.

Tips for staying secure and compliant (without going overboard)

• Embrace least privilege as a default

Always start with the smallest possible scope. If a user only needs read access to a secret for a limited period, grant that, not broader rights.

• Separate duties

Have different people handle policy creation, access provisioning, and auditing. This reduces the risk of collusion and strengthens accountability.

• Automate where it makes sense

Automation reduces human error in routine tasks like provisioning and rotation. It also creates an auditable trail that’s easier to verify.

• Regular audits and simulations

Run periodic checks and mock scenarios to verify that access controls behave as expected. Auditors don’t just verify past activity—they help anticipate and prevent issues.

• Documentation that’s actually useful

Policies, workflows, and roles should be clearly documented and accessible to the people who need them. When someone asks, “Why this access?” there should be a straightforward answer.

A gentle reminder about roles and reality

In the grand scheme, the Vault is a tool for safeguarding critical credentials. The people who interact with it—Administrators, Users, and Auditors—form the core operational trio that makes access possible, traceable, and responsible. Managers play a vital governance role, but when we talk about the act of granting access itself, they aren’t a required ingredient. It’s not about who oversees the process; it’s about who actually gets to open the vault and under what rules.

If you’ve ever had to set up access for a new project or respond to a security alert, you know the rhythm: policy, request, approve, provide access, watch the logs. It’s a cycle that keeps momentum while preserving a careful balance between utility and security. And if you want to see that balance in action, you don’t have to look far—CyberArk’s Vault and its associated groups set the stage for responsible access management that’s both practical and protective.

Final thoughts: a human take on a technical reality

Access control isn’t glamorous, and it shouldn’t be. What matters is clarity, accountability, and a structure that scales with your team. The idea that Managers aren’t strictly required to grant access doesn’t discount their importance—it's about where their role fits in the bigger picture. In many teams, they’re the strategic voices guiding policy and approvals, while Administrators, Users, and Auditors keep the hands-on work clean, auditable, and secure.

If you’re navigating this world, remember that the goal is not to create a fortress with rigid gates but to establish a disciplined workflow where the right people have the right access at the right time—and where every action leaves a trace that can be checked, discussed, and trusted. That’s how a vault stays secure without turning into a bottleneck.

So, who exactly is essential to granting access? Administrators, Users, and Auditors. And who isn’t a strict requirement for that process? Managers. It’s a distinction worth keeping in mind as you design, review, and refine access controls in CyberArk—and as you think through the everyday realities of protecting privileged data in a busy, modern environment.