Plan Your MIM 2016 End of Support: Entra ID, IGA, or Hybrid Migration

Microsoft’s announcement that extended support for Microsoft Identity Manager (MIM) 2016 will end on January 9, 2029, is a deadline many organizations can no longer treat as distant background noise — it’s a firm timeline with real operational, security, and compliance consequences. MIM has been the on‑premises identity and lifecycle workhorse for countless enterprises, handling directory synchronization, self‑service, and certificate/smart‑card lifecycle tasks that often touch every application. With Microsoft steering its identity stack toward Microsoft Entra ID and cloud‑first identity services, IT teams must now weigh three practical paths forward: migrate to Microsoft Entra ID and its hybrid tooling, adopt third‑party IAM/IAG platforms, or design a hybrid mix that preserves mission‑critical on‑prem dependencies while taking advantage of cloud innovation. This feature unpacks the options, validates the technical claims against official documentation and vendor literature, and lays out an operationally realistic, phased migration plan with risk controls and testing checklists you can act on today.

Background / Overview​

What Microsoft Identity Manager actually is​

Microsoft Identity Manager (MIM) 2016 is an on‑premises identity and access management platform used for:

• User and group synchronization across directories and applications.
• Password reset and self‑service features.
• Certificate and smart‑card lifecycle management via MIM Certificate Manager (MIM CM).
• Custom workflows and extensibility through connectors and Management Agents.

MIM 2016 SP2 remains supported under Microsoft’s Fixed Lifecycle Policy until January 9, 2029 — after that date Microsoft will no longer provide security updates or support for the product. That extended‑support date is explicitly listed in Microsoft’s lifecycle documentation and is reiterated in the MIM documentation pages.

Why Microsoft is moving on​

Microsoft’s strategy has been public and consistent: identity is a cloud and platform play moving under the Microsoft Entra umbrella. Azure AD was rebranded to Microsoft Entra ID as part of this broader product consolidation and expansion, and Microsoft is investing new features and governance capabilities into Entra rather than MIM. The result is straightforward: MIM will stay serviceable until the 2029 extended end‑date, but long‑term innovation, cloud integrations, and security investments are being focused on Microsoft Entra.

---

The urgency of transition: why “2029” isn’t comfortably far away​

It’s tempting to read January 9, 2029 and assume there’s plenty of breathing room. That’s a dangerous assumption.

• Complex identity migrations take years when you factor in discovery, mapping, connector redevelopment, compliance verification, and application testing. A realistic migration window for large estates is 12–36 months.
• MIM skills are already scarce. As the market shifts, available expertise and contractor availability will tighten and costs will rise.
• Security posture risks increase when systems run on software that no longer receives fixes. Remaining on unsupported binaries after 2029 can create regulatory exposure for frameworks that require current patch status for critical infrastructure.
• Many organizations depend on MIM for high‑risk functions (password writeback, certificate issuance, smart‑card lifecycle). Recreating those workflows without careful testing can cause outages or break authentication for critical services.

Petri’s advisory and other practical community writeups urge planning now — not later — and emphasize phased, test‑driven migration rather than a single “big bang.”

---

Your core options beyond Microsoft Identity Manager​

There are three realistic, pragmatic paths forward. Each has trade‑offs in cost, control, operational complexity, and long‑term strategy.

1) Microsoft Entra ID (cloud‑first, hybrid‑capable)​

Microsoft Entra ID (formerly Azure AD) is Microsoft’s cloud identity platform and is the intended long‑term successor for most MIM scenarios that lean toward Microsoft 365 and Azure workloads.
Key strengths:

• Deep integration with Microsoft 365, Azure, and thousands of SaaS apps.
• Native SSO, MFA, Conditional Access, and Identity Protection features.
• Cloud provisioning and hybrid synchronization via Microsoft Entra Cloud Sync and Entra Connect. Cloud Sync is Microsoft’s lightweight cloud‑orchestrated agent model for AD → Entra ID synchronization; it is intended to replace legacy on‑prem sync in many scenarios and supports multi‑forest disconnected environments and auto‑updating agents.
• Continuous feature delivery and security investments.

Challenges and gaps:

• Entra ID is not a drop‑in replacement for every MIM capability. Some on‑prem functions — especially certificate lifecycle operations and certain bespoke provisioning workflows — are not a one‑click lift into Entra ID.
• Entra Cloud Sync is still feature‑differentiated compared with Entra Connect for device writes, some complex attribute mappings, and certain device scenarios. Microsoft documents migration steps and a comparison to help you choose the right sync client.

When to choose Entra ID: If most workloads are or will be in Microsoft 365/Azure, and your identity surface is primarily cloud‑oriented or can be refactored into cloud provisioning, Entra ID is typically the fastest route to improved security, feature velocity, and lower infrastructure overhead.

2) Third‑party IAM / IGA platforms (Okta, SailPoint, and others)​

If your estate is heterogeneous — multiple clouds, diverse SaaS providers, heavy regulatory or governance needs, or entrenched on‑prem processes — third‑party platforms are strong contenders.

• Okta (Workforce Identity) provides robust SSO, adaptive MFA, provisioning via SCIM, and a large catalog of integrations plus automation via Okta Workflows. Okta’s strengths are breadth of application integrations and a focused cloud‑native control plane for authentication and lifecycle actions.
• SailPoint (IdentityNow, IdentityIQ) emphasizes deep identity governance and access certification capabilities. SailPoint’s IGA capabilities — role mining, certification campaigns, policy enforcement, and AI‑driven access modeling — are well‑suited to organizations that must meet strict compliance and attestation requirements.
• Other vendors (ForgeRock, IBM Security Verify, Saviynt) offer various permutations of governance, provisioning, and PAM integration.

Strengths:

• Often better fit for complex governance, SoD, and attestation use cases.
• Can operate multi‑cloud and multi‑directory without vendor lock‑in into a single cloud provider.

Trade‑offs:

• Licensing and implementation costs can be higher.
• Migration complexity exists: connectors may not map 1:1, and certificate/smart‑card management may still require on‑prem components or additional vendors.
• For organizations standardized on Microsoft 365, third‑party tools can duplicate capabilities and increase operational surface.

3) Hybrid approaches (mix-and-match)​

A pragmatic majority of enterprises will adopt a hybrid approach:

• Use Microsoft Entra ID for SaaS and Microsoft workloads.
• Retain MIM or AD CS for specific on‑prem certificate/smart‑card functions (while isolating and hardening those services).
• Add third‑party IGA for governance and attestation if required by regulation or business complexity.

Hybrid approaches let you decommission legacy MIM components gradually while preserving critical on‑prem capabilities during cutover.

---

What to evaluate when choosing a successor​

The decision isn’t binary. Use a focused discovery and evaluation on these axes:

• Inventory: which applications currently rely on MIM provisioning, which connectors are custom, and where are certificates/smart cards used?
• Governance needs: length and complexity of certification campaigns, SoD requirements, audit frequency.
• On‑prem dependencies: MIM CM, smart card issuance, device writes, legacy HR systems, multi‑forest disconnected ADs.
• Future posture: cloud‑first, hybrid, or primarily on‑prem for reasons of latency, data residency, or policy.
• Budget model: OPEX (subscriptions) vs CAPEX (on‑prem licensing + maintenance).
• Expertise: internal staff with MIM, Azure/Entra, or third‑party platform skills.

Community and vendor checklists emphasize proof‑of‑concepts and POC validation for critical claims (e.g., “instant forest failover” or “guaranteed RTO” from AD recovery vendors). Validate claims with real recovery drills.

---

Migration strategy: a phased, test‑driven plan​

Identity migrations are inherently high‑risk. Break the project into pragmatic phases with clear acceptance gates.

• Inventory & discovery (Weeks 0–4)
• Export all MIM sync rules, connectors, MA configurations, portal workflows, and MIM CM dependencies.
• Map every application that consumes MIM‑provisioned accounts or group memberships.
• Catalog certificate usage: which apps, which CAs, smart‑card workflows, and what tooling (middleware, middleware PIN prompts, etc.) rely on MIM CM.
• Categorize risk and dependencies (Weeks 2–8)
• Tag systems as critical / high / medium / low.
• For critical services, build rollback and break‑glass plans.
• Pilot & parallel run (Weeks 8–20)
• Select one low‑risk domain/OU and implement Entra Cloud Sync or a third‑party connector in parallel with MIM.
• Validate provisioning triggers, attribute flows, and group memberships.
• Test password writeback, SSPR, and MFA interaction.
• Rebuild or adapt custom workflows (Weeks 12–40)
• Recreate necessary logic in the chosen platform: Entra lifecycle workflows, Okta Workflows, or SailPoint automation.
• For certificate management: consider replacing MIM CM with AD CS + CA automation, HSM integrations, or a vendor PAM/PKI solution; validate smart‑card issuance flows in an isolated lab.
• Security & compliance validation (Ongoing)
• Run audit trails and attestations; perform automated access reviews.
• Rotate and validate break‑glass and service principal credentials.
• Cutover & decommission (Final phase)
• Use staged cutovers per business unit, monitor sign‑in telemetry, and keep MIM in read‑only mode for a validation window before removing it from production.

This phased approach reduces blast radius and gives time to discover unanticipated dependencies.

---

Practical technical caveats and checks​

• MIM CM is tightly coupled to AD CS and makes schema extensions and special certificate template expectations. Migrating certificate workflows means planning for schema change rollback complexity and validating template compatibility. Microsoft’s MIM CM deployment documentation is prescriptive and should be followed closely during testing.
• Entra Cloud Sync vs Entra Connect: Cloud Sync is Microsoft’s cloud‑orchestrated agent model and is generally preferred for lightweight scenarios and multi‑forest disconnected environments; but it lacks device object write support and has certain feature differentials. Use Microsoft’s comparison guidance to choose the right connector.
• Don’t assume connectors are simple. Custom MIM MA logic, attribute transformations, and derived attributes will often require reimplementation — sometimes as a workflow in Entra, sometimes as code in a middleware layer, or as part of a third‑party connector. Factor implementation time for each custom rule.

---

Security, compliance, and operational controls during migration​

• Treat AD, Entra Connect servers, and MIM infrastructure as Tier‑0 assets. Harden, segment, and restrict access. Ensure recovery credentials are locked in a separate vault and documented.
• Maintain at least two independent backups of directory state and MIM configuration. Use immutable storage for critical artifacts.
• Conduct scheduled recovery rehearsals: object‑level restores, full‑forest rehearsals in isolated labs, and certificate reissuance drills.
• Validate vendor claims for forensic support, immutability, and SLA metrics during procurement. Do not accept marketing language like “instant” or “guaranteed” without measured, documented results.

---

Cost and procurement realities​

• Microsoft Entra ID typically shifts cost toward OPEX subscriptions. The savings on infrastructure can be real, but subscription costs scale with users, P2 features, and conditional access requirements.
• Third‑party IGA solutions often carry higher licensing and implementation fees, but they can reduce long‑term custom engineering and provide stronger governance automation for regulated industries.
• Expect vendors to quote enterprise pricing for AD‑native recovery or PKI replacement products — most enterprise AD recovery vendors do not publish list prices. Always request written runbooks, recovery SLAs, and POC evidence.

---

Decision heuristics: choose quickly but wisely​

• If you are a Microsoft‑centric organization (Microsoft 365, Azure VM estate, Intune), prioritize Entra ID + Entra Cloud Sync and plan to re‑engineer certificate functions where needed.
• If you must meet heavy governance / SoD / compliance requirements across multi‑cloud ecosystems, evaluate SailPoint or similar IGA platforms for access certification and role modeling.
• If you need broad app integration, advanced auth controls, and a strong SSO/Provisioning catalog, Okta may be the right fit.
• For mixed estates, adopt a hybrid approach: Entra ID for core cloud auth, third‑party IGA for governance, and a specialized PKI vendor or careful AD CS modernization for certificate needs.

Use a two‑year planning horizon: first year to pilot and phase, second year to migrate remaining services and decommission MIM.

---

What to do in the next 90 days (practical checklist)​

• Create an authoritative inventory of MIM dependencies and certificate use cases.
• Identify a pilot domain and run Entra Cloud Sync (or an equivalent) side‑by‑side with MIM.
• Arrange a proof‑of‑concept with any third‑party IGA vendor you’re seriously considering — include a scripted set of provisioning scenarios and an access certification use case as part of the POC.
• Draft a fall‑back runbook that documents how to re‑enable MIM provisioning in case a cutover introduces a critical failure.
• Lock down and audit all MIM and Entra Connect service accounts and break‑glass credentials; rotate secrets where feasible.
• If you rely on MIM CM, begin architecting a replacement PKI path (AD CS automation, HSM integration, or vendor PKI) and test certificate issuance/revocation in a lab.

---

Closing assessment: strengths, risks, and a measured recommendation​

MIM has been an extraordinarily useful and flexible on‑premises identity platform — but its architecture and dependency model make it an increasingly brittle long‑term choice in a cloud‑centric world. Microsoft’s transition to Microsoft Entra ID (the renamed Azure AD) and Entra Cloud Sync creates a viable, often preferable, successor path for organizations that are comfortable with a cloud or hybrid identity posture. For estates with heavy governance or complicated legacy logic, third‑party IGA platforms like SailPoint or identity control planes such as Okta remain fully valid choices.
Key strengths of the cloud path:

• Continuous security updates and innovation.
• Reduced infrastructure footprint.
• Native integrations with Microsoft 365 and Azure.

Principal risks and watch‑outs:

• Loss of specific MIM‑centric on‑prem workflows (certificate management, bespoke MAs) without planned replacements.
• Hidden migration complexity in custom rules and connectors.
• Potential cost increases if subscription models aren’t actively managed.

Recommendation (measured): start planning now with a conservative phased migration, validate critical claims with real POCs (especially for PKI and full‑forest recovery scenarios), and favor incremental cutovers that keep MIM in place as a read‑only or fallback mechanism while you validate functionality in the successor platform. Community guidance and vendor documentation emphasise the same caution: validate, measure, and test before you retire your identity lifeline.

---

Microsoft Identity Manager shaped a generation of on‑premises identity operations. The end of its extended support is not merely a product sunset — it’s an inflection point for identity architecture. The right response is neither panic nor complacency: it’s disciplined discovery, early pilots, and a phased migration that preserves business continuity while opening the door to stronger, cloud‑native identity security.

---

Source: Petri IT Knowledgebase Microsoft Identity Manager: Your Options Beyond 2029