Cloud computing concentrates valuable workloads behind identity services, administrative interfaces, and machine-to-machine authorization channels. Centralized access records can be difficult to reconcile across providers and may create single points of administrative failure. Blockchain-based designs offer tamper-evident policy history, shared verification, and programmable authorization, but they also introduce consensus delays, governance burdens, privacy exposure, and smart-contract risks. This narrative review evaluates an architecture in which permissioned ledger services register identity commitments and access-policy versions while sensitive attributes, credentials, and workload data remain off-chain. The paper discusses decentralized identifiers, verifiable credentials, challenge-response authentication, role- and attribute-based authorization, revocation, privacy-preserving evidence, cloud integration, and realistic security evaluation. Rather than presenting invented performance measurements, it proposes testable research questions, threat scenarios, and comparison baselines for assessing whether a ledger materially improves security over conventional identity and access management. The principal conclusion is that blockchain can improve cross-organizational auditability in some settings but is not a substitute for secure identity proofing, key custody, sound policy engineering, or operational monitoring.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adrian Weller (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: