IT Perfection · Microsoft Tools

Free Hybrid Identity Assessment

Hybrid Identity Assessment from IT Perfection helps business owners, IT managers, and technical teams review sync health, authentication, admin roles, recovery and related operational risk.

Created by Ali Hassani, CISO - 25+ years of IT, cybersecurity, compliance, Microsoft infrastructure, network security, and IT operations experience.

Assessment overview

What this tool reviews

Hybrid Identity Assessment from IT Perfection helps business owners, IT managers, and technical teams review sync health, authentication, admin roles, recovery and related operational risk.

The scorecard is built for business owners, IT managers, and administrators who need to confirm evidence quality, access boundaries, logging coverage, exception status, and remediation priority before a project, audit, renewal, or support review.

Important disclaimer

This tool is for initial guidance only and does not replace a professional cybersecurity audit, compliance assessment, penetration test, architecture review, or legal/compliance review.

Interactive scorecard

Hybrid Identity Assessment scorecard

Answer each item using available configuration records, access lists, logs, ticket history, screenshots, backup evidence, or vendor console data. Results are calculated locally in the browser and are not submitted to IT Perfection.

1. Sync health

Review sync health design, evidence location, control ownership, and recurring validation records. Evidence to review: collect current-state screenshots or exports for sync health, plus ownership, exception, and change records.

Do the records for sync health identify the control owner, approved baseline, evidence location, and most recent validation date?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Sync health must be traceable to an approved configuration, named owner, and dated validation record. Without that evidence, teams cannot prove the control is configured as intended or determine whether exceptions are still justified. Review evidence for control objective, evidence trail, exception handling, review cadence, owner accountability, validation record.

Business impact

Weak sync health controls can leave stale access, unmonitored changes, unsupported assets, or untested recovery paths in production. The result is longer triage time, weaker audit evidence, and higher remediation cost. It can increase remediation cost and delay recovery.

What Sync health is

Sync health is the hybrid identity assessment control area that defines expected configuration, ownership, supporting evidence, and review cadence. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For sync health, the relevant evidence usually includes collect current-state screenshots or exports for sync health, plus ownership, exception, and change records. Review the related control objective, evidence trail, exception handling, review cadence, owner accountability, validation record, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include admin console, ticketing system, monitoring platform, configuration export, documentation repository.

2. Authentication

Review authentication design, evidence location, control ownership, and recurring validation records. Evidence to review: export user and role assignments, review inactive or guest accounts, compare MFA/Conditional Access coverage, and sample recent joiner-mover-leaver tickets.

Can the team prove that authentication matches the intended configuration and was reviewed after material changes?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Authentication must be traceable to an approved configuration, named owner, and dated validation record. Without that evidence, teams cannot prove the control is configured as intended or determine whether exceptions are still justified. Review evidence for MFA enforcement, least privilege, RBAC, break-glass accounts, stale identities, SSO/SAML, sign-in logs, privileged access groups.

Business impact

Weak authentication controls can leave stale access, unmonitored changes, unsupported assets, or untested recovery paths in production. The result is longer triage time, weaker audit evidence, and higher remediation cost. Risk increases when ownership, evidence, or exceptions are not documented.

What Authentication is

Authentication is the operating area where policy, configuration, monitoring, and support records need to agree with the actual environment. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For authentication, the relevant evidence usually includes export user and role assignments, review inactive or guest accounts, compare MFA/Conditional Access coverage, and sample recent joiner-mover-leaver tickets. Review the related MFA enforcement, least privilege, RBAC, break-glass accounts, stale identities, SSO/SAML, sign-in logs, privileged access groups, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include Microsoft Entra admin center, Active Directory Users and Computers, sign-in logs, audit logs, access reviews, PowerShell exports.

3. Admin roles

Review admin roles design, evidence location, control ownership, and recurring validation records. Evidence to review: export user and role assignments, review inactive or guest accounts, compare MFA/Conditional Access coverage, and sample recent joiner-mover-leaver tickets.

Are exceptions, ownership, monitoring records, and response evidence for admin roles documented well enough for audit or incident response?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Admin roles must be traceable to an approved configuration, named owner, and dated validation record. Without that evidence, teams cannot prove the control is configured as intended or determine whether exceptions are still justified. Review evidence for MFA enforcement, least privilege, RBAC, break-glass accounts, stale identities, SSO/SAML, sign-in logs, privileged access groups.

Business impact

Weak admin roles controls can leave stale access, unmonitored changes, unsupported assets, or untested recovery paths in production. The result is longer triage time, weaker audit evidence, and higher remediation cost. Risk increases when ownership, evidence, or exceptions are not documented.

What Admin roles are

Admin roles are the technical and administrative control set used to prove this part of the environment is configured, maintained, and reviewed. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For admin roles, the relevant evidence usually includes export user and role assignments, review inactive or guest accounts, compare MFA/Conditional Access coverage, and sample recent joiner-mover-leaver tickets. Review the related MFA enforcement, least privilege, RBAC, break-glass accounts, stale identities, SSO/SAML, sign-in logs, privileged access groups, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include Microsoft Entra admin center, Active Directory Users and Computers, sign-in logs, audit logs, access reviews, PowerShell exports.

4. Recovery

Recovery sequencing, priority assignment, and business continuity readiness. Evidence to review: review job success history, protected workload scope, immutable-copy status, last restore test, retention settings, and recovery dependency mapping.

Do the records for recovery identify the control owner, approved baseline, evidence location, and most recent validation date?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Recovery must be traceable to an approved configuration, named owner, and dated validation record. Without that evidence, teams cannot prove the control is configured as intended or determine whether exceptions are still justified. Review evidence for RTO, RPO, 3-2-1 backup, immutable storage, air gap, restore verification, retention policy, recovery runbook, ransomware isolation.

Business impact

Weak recovery controls can leave stale access, unmonitored changes, unsupported assets, or untested recovery paths in production. The result is longer triage time, weaker audit evidence, and higher remediation cost. It often becomes visible during audits, renewals, or outside reviews.

What Recovery is

Recovery is the hybrid identity assessment control area that defines expected configuration, ownership, supporting evidence, and review cadence. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For recovery, the relevant evidence usually includes review job success history, protected workload scope, immutable-copy status, last restore test, retention settings, and recovery dependency mapping. Review the related RTO, RPO, 3-2-1 backup, immutable storage, air gap, restore verification, retention policy, recovery runbook, ransomware isolation, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include backup console, restore-test logs, storage reports, DR runbooks, cloud backup policy, ticketing evidence.

5. Documentation

Operational runbooks, evidence repositories, and procedure accuracy. Evidence to review: sample recent tickets and changes, verify approval and rollback records, compare documentation against production, and confirm named owners.

Can the team prove that documentation matches the intended configuration and was reviewed after material changes?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Documentation must be traceable to an approved configuration, named owner, and dated validation record. Without that evidence, teams cannot prove the control is configured as intended or determine whether exceptions are still justified. Review evidence for SLA, RACI, change advisory review, rollback plan, runbook accuracy, configuration management, evidence repository, operational KPIs.

Business impact

Weak documentation controls can leave stale access, unmonitored changes, unsupported assets, or untested recovery paths in production. The result is longer triage time, weaker audit evidence, and higher remediation cost. It can increase remediation cost and delay recovery.

What Documentation is

Documentation is the operating area where policy, configuration, monitoring, and support records need to agree with the actual environment. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For documentation, the relevant evidence usually includes sample recent tickets and changes, verify approval and rollback records, compare documentation against production, and confirm named owners. Review the related SLA, RACI, change advisory review, rollback plan, runbook accuracy, configuration management, evidence repository, operational KPIs, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include ticketing system, documentation portal, change calendar, asset inventory, monitoring alerts, configuration exports.

6. Monitoring

Telemetry collection, alert thresholds, and escalation workflows. Evidence to review: inspect zone changes, resolver paths, DHCP scope utilization, alert thresholds, log retention, NTP synchronization, and monitoring coverage gaps.

Are exceptions, ownership, monitoring records, and response evidence for monitoring documented well enough for audit or incident response?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Monitoring must be traceable to an approved configuration, named owner, and dated validation record. Without that evidence, teams cannot prove the control is configured as intended or determine whether exceptions are still justified. Review evidence for forwarders, secure dynamic updates, DHCP failover, reservations, lease scope utilization, syslog, SNMP, NetFlow, SIEM correlation.

Business impact

Weak monitoring controls can leave stale access, unmonitored changes, unsupported assets, or untested recovery paths in production. The result is longer triage time, weaker audit evidence, and higher remediation cost. Risk increases when ownership, evidence, or exceptions are not documented.

What Monitoring is

Monitoring is the technical and administrative control set used to prove this part of the environment is configured, maintained, and reviewed. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For monitoring, the relevant evidence usually includes inspect zone changes, resolver paths, DHCP scope utilization, alert thresholds, log retention, NTP synchronization, and monitoring coverage gaps. Review the related forwarders, secure dynamic updates, DHCP failover, reservations, lease scope utilization, syslog, SNMP, NetFlow, SIEM correlation, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include DNS/DHCP consoles, SIEM, syslog server, network monitoring dashboards, packet captures, availability reports.

7. Ownership

RACI clarity for approvals, maintenance, and review obligations. Evidence to review: sample recent tickets and changes, verify approval and rollback records, compare documentation against production, and confirm named owners.

Do the records for ownership identify the control owner, approved baseline, evidence location, and most recent validation date?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Ownership must be traceable to an approved configuration, named owner, and dated validation record. Without that evidence, teams cannot prove the control is configured as intended or determine whether exceptions are still justified. Review evidence for SLA, RACI, change advisory review, rollback plan, runbook accuracy, configuration management, evidence repository, operational KPIs.

Business impact

Weak ownership controls can leave stale access, unmonitored changes, unsupported assets, or untested recovery paths in production. The result is longer triage time, weaker audit evidence, and higher remediation cost. Risk increases when ownership, evidence, or exceptions are not documented.

What Ownership is

Ownership is the hybrid identity assessment control area that defines expected configuration, ownership, supporting evidence, and review cadence. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For ownership, the relevant evidence usually includes sample recent tickets and changes, verify approval and rollback records, compare documentation against production, and confirm named owners. Review the related SLA, RACI, change advisory review, rollback plan, runbook accuracy, configuration management, evidence repository, operational KPIs, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include ticketing system, documentation portal, change calendar, asset inventory, monitoring alerts, configuration exports.

8. Testing

Validation frequency, test evidence quality, and remediation verification. Evidence to review: sample recent tickets and changes, verify approval and rollback records, compare documentation against production, and confirm named owners.

Can the team prove that testing matches the intended configuration and was reviewed after material changes?

Review guidance, technical context, and business impact
Why it matters

Testing must be traceable to an approved configuration, named owner, and dated validation record. Without that evidence, teams cannot prove the control is configured as intended or determine whether exceptions are still justified. Review evidence for SLA, RACI, change advisory review, rollback plan, runbook accuracy, configuration management, evidence repository, operational KPIs.

Business impact

Weak testing controls can leave stale access, unmonitored changes, unsupported assets, or untested recovery paths in production. The result is longer triage time, weaker audit evidence, and higher remediation cost. It often becomes visible during audits, renewals, or outside reviews.

What Testing is

Testing is the operating area where policy, configuration, monitoring, and support records need to agree with the actual environment. A reviewer should be able to confirm the current state from system exports, admin-console settings, monitoring records, tickets, and maintained documentation. For testing, the relevant evidence usually includes sample recent tickets and changes, verify approval and rollback records, compare documentation against production, and confirm named owners. Review the related SLA, RACI, change advisory review, rollback plan, runbook accuracy, configuration management, evidence repository, operational KPIs, then confirm which systems or users are affected, which logs prove the control is operating, and how exceptions are approved, tracked, and revisited. Common review sources include ticketing system, documentation portal, change calendar, asset inventory, monitoring alerts, configuration exports.

Printable report

Downloadable and printable Hybrid Identity Assessment report

Free Hybrid Identity Assessment Report
Ali Hassani, CISO and IT infrastructure consultant

Ali Hassani, CISO

Created by Ali Hassani, CISO - 25+ years of IT, cybersecurity, compliance, and infrastructure experience.

Certifications: CISSP, CCISO, CCNP, CCNA, MCSE, MCSA Security, MCITP, MCP, and MCTS. View Ali's IT Perfection profile.

Complete the assessment and calculate results to populate this report with your score, findings, recommendations, and priority roadmap.

Client support resources

IT Perfection can review the evidence, validate findings, and help prioritize remediation for managed IT, Microsoft 365, Azure, endpoint security, backup, servers, network infrastructure, and co-managed IT.

Disclaimer: This free tool is a preliminary self-assessment and educational resource. It does not replace a professional cybersecurity audit, compliance assessment, penetration test, or legal/compliance review.

Ali Hassani, CISO and IT infrastructure specialist

Ali Hassani expertise

Hybrid Identity Assessment guidance backed by real infrastructure experience

Ali Hassani is a cybersecurity consultant, virtual CISO, network security engineer, and IT infrastructure specialist with more than 25 years of experience helping organizations design, secure, audit, and support business IT environments.