Access Control Matrix: Key Components and 5 Critical Best Practices

In this article:

What Is an Access Control Matrix? 

An access control matrix (ACM) is a model to help visualize what permissions subjects have for  certain resources within a system. It structures who can do what within a system by mapping subjects against resources. A subject typically designates a user, a role, or a device.

Each matrix cell specifies the levels of access permitted for particular subjects over particular objects. A subject can be a particular user, group, roles, devices, or whatever things in the system have permissions over the objects of interest. The layout is essentially a table where the first column represents the subjects and subsequent columns are the permissions the subject has for some object, or vice versa.

Using an ACM provides a way to visualize permissions across networks or single systems. By centralizing permission settings, it becomes easier to control and audit who can access what, allowing for organizational security. This matrix can show permitted actions on sensitive data, reducing risk and helping maintain compliance standards.

Here is a simple example of an ACM:

This is part of a series of articles about zero trust security.

Components of an Access Control Matrix

ACMs typically include the following components.

Subjects

Subjects, usually users or processes, in an access control matrix are the entities that request access to resources. These subjects and their permissions are identified within the matrix as rows or columns. In more complex systems, subjects may include a large range of users, requiring management to ensure that the access rules applied are precise and justifiable.

Objects

Objects are the resources or entities that subjects wish to access, often represented as columns or rows in a matrix. These can include files, applications, or even network devices, making them central to system operations. Detailing objects in an ACM means listing each element that requires protection and the scope of accessible actions for each subject.

Permissions

Permissions define the specific actions a subject can perform on an object within the ACM. These actions may include reading, writing, executing, deleting, or configuring resources. Defining permissions clearly in the matrix ensures that each subject’s access is granularly controlled, preventing unauthorized actions and supporting compliance with organizational security policies. Precision in assigning permissions is key to balancing accessibility with risk mitigation.

Access Rights

Access rights specify the exact level or type of interaction a subject is permitted with an object. These rights might range from basic read-only access to full administrative control, depending on the subject’s role and the resource’s criticality. By tailoring access rights to operational needs and enforcing them systematically through the ACM, organizations can effectively minimize security vulnerabilities while ensuring smooth operations.

Implementations of Access Control Matrices 

There are several ways to implement an ACM.

Global Table Approach

The global table implementation involves creating a table where each row represents a subject and each column represents an object. Every intersection between a subject and an object specifies the permissions granted. This centralized scheme simplifies the visualization of access rights and enables audits and updates across the entire system.

By aggregating permissions into one table, the global approach allows for quick adjustments, making it appropriate in environments needing frequent updates or detailed control. However, it can be challenging to manage the scale of the table in large organizations, which requires database management and optimization techniques to prevent performance degradation and ensure timely access verification.

Access Control Lists (ACLs)

Access control lists (ACLs) are another method of implementing access control, where each object has an associated list specifying the subjects and their corresponding permissions. This list-based approach can offer more flexibility in managing permissions on a per-object basis, ensuring control over user-resource interaction within a granular framework.

ACLs are widely adopted, but are now considered a legacy approach. They are easy to implement but quickly grow unwieldy and become difficult to manage and maintain. Additionally, maintaining consistency across ACLs requires monitoring to avoid security loopholes.

Capability Lists

Capability lists support access control by associating each subject with a list of objects and the permitted actions on them. Here, subjects carry tokens or “capabilities” that prove their access rights, an efficient method to track individual subject permissions and easily update them, improving security and management flexibility.

This model is suitable in situations where decentralized management of permissions fits the operational model, allowing subjects or users to manage their access rights alongside central controls. However, managing capability lists can become complex with many subjects and resources. 

Comparison with Other Access Control Models 

Access control matrices are just one type of access control model. Here’s a quick comparison with other related models.

Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)

Role-based access control (RBAC) assigns permissions based on user roles within an organization, simplifying permission management by grouping users with similar access needs. It provides systematic and scalable permission allocation, making it useful in environments with large hierarchies or distinct departmental permissions needs.

While access control matrices define explicit user-object permissions directly, RBAC can abstract this process by organizing roles that automatically enforce these access decisions. Combining RBAC with matrices can optimize permissions management, allowing a structured but adaptable approach to managing changes.

Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC)

Attribute-based access control (ABAC) uses attributes, which can be related to users, resources, or the environment, to make access decisions dynamically. This allows for fine-grained access management adjusted in real time based on context, offering adaptability that static models sometimes cannot deliver.

While ACMs maintain a fixed permission structure, ABAC provides dynamic permissions that can be tailored instantly as conditions change. This model can complement matrices by adding a layer of conditional logic to decision-making, improving adaptability to real-world operating environments or business logic needs.

Capability-Based Access Control (CapBAC)

Capability-based access control (CapBAC) assigns tokens that specify resource access rights, ensuring that only legitimate tokens grant access. This model decentralizes access management, empowering subjects with explicit proof of their access rights without frequent policy consultations.

Unlike traditional matrices reliant on a centralized structure, CapBAC explicitly ties resource permissions to easily transferable capabilities. This mobility and delegation can make permission management more agile, although it requires careful handling to prevent unauthorized token modifications. 

Discretionary Access Control (DAC)

With discretionary access control (DAC), access rights are determined by the resource owner. This model allows owners discretion over who can access their resources, providing flexibility in access management. Users can modify resource sharing settings, making DAC versatile but susceptible to unauthorized access due to the flexibility allowed to end-users.

DAC is often less rigid than ACM as it doesn’t necessarily follow a structured matrix. The lack of structured oversight can lead to security vulnerabilities, whereas matrices provide a centralized control allowing for more consistent policy enforcement and access reviews.

Mandatory Access Control (MAC)

Mandatory access control (MAC) enforces security policies by applying system-wide constraints that prevent users from modifying access permissions. It uses a hierarchical system where access decisions are based on fixed classifications and labels. MAC ensures strict governance over resource access, making it highly secure but less flexible.

Compared to ACM, MAC is generally more restrictive, focusing on ensuring that all access strictly follows predefined policies without exceptions. While matrices provide flexibility and user-driven permissions, MAC insists on top-down control that can offer improved data protection in environments requiring high-security assurances.

Best Practices for Using Access Control Matrices 

Here are some of the practices to keep in mind when working with an access control matrix.

1. Implementing the Principle of Least Privilege

Applying the principle of least privilege involves granting users the minimum levels of access needed for their roles, preventing excessive permissions that could be exploited maliciously. Implementing this within access control matrices ensures security by reducing unauthorized access risks and keeping user roles appropriately separated.

Matrix design incorporating least privilege requires regular reviews and audits to adjust permissions aligned with current operational roles. It involves scrutinizing each access level critically, removing redundant permissions to simplify access rights. 

2. Regular Auditing and Monitoring

Conducting regular audits of access control matrices is essential for identifying security gaps and ensuring that permissions are up-to-date with organizational changes. Continual monitoring allows for proactive detection of irregular access patterns or permissions that could lead to vulnerabilities if unchecked.

By implementing audit practices, organizations can best ensure compliance with security protocols and regulatory requirements. Monitoring access trends enables informed adjustments, supporting operational integrity and threat response capabilities. 

3. Updating Access Rights

Regularly updating access rights helps align permissions with changing organizational roles and responsibilities. Changes in personnel, organizational structure, or security policies require a responsive update protocol within access control matrices to maintain alignment and reduce security risks associated with outdated privileges.

Periodic updates help prevent access oversights or loopholes that could be leveraged maliciously. Implementing automated tools and regular audits assist in managing such updates, ensuring that permissions reflect current business needs. 

4. Implementing Segregation of Duties

Segregation of duties involves distributing task responsibilities among multiple users to prevent misuse or fraud. By segmenting critical functions into distinct user duties, matrices enforce checks and balances, reducing the risk from insider threats.

Implementing effective duty segregation requires a strategic approach within permissions configuration, ensuring that each user’s access aligns strictly with predefined roles. Carefully balancing responsibilities with access levels helps prevent conflicts of interest or unauthorized influence on sensitive operations, supporting transparent and accountable security practices.

5. Combining with Other Security Measures

Integrating access control matrices with additional security measures improves their efficacy, providing layered security dynamics. Combining them with firewalls, intrusion detection systems, or encryption can create a stronger security ecosystem..

Combining access control matrices with other security measures enhances security by adding redundancy and defense-in-depth. For example, using an ACM alongside network firewalls ensures that even if unauthorized users gain network access, their actions are restricted by matrix-defined permissions. Similarly, pairing ACMs with encryption secures sensitive data from exposure, even if access controls are bypassed.

Authentication for SaaS with Frontegg

Frontegg empowers SaaS teams to streamline identity management by distributing responsibilities beyond developers. With advanced authentication protocols like OAuth, OpenID Connect, SAML, and WebAuthn, Frontegg ensures secure, scalable user access.

Granular security policies—including MFA, device verification, and user lockouts—are built-in, enabling non-developers to manage identity tasks confidently while developers focus on innovation. Frontegg transforms identity management into a win-win solution for all stakeholders.

Start for free