Overcoming 8 Challenges of Implementing Zero Trust

2024-10-07T19:27:36+00:000 Comments

Zero trust architecture (ZTA) is a broad security approach that emphasizes verifying trust for every access attempt across a network. ZTA operates on the “never trust, always verify” principle, meaning every access request is scrutinized before granting permission.  ZTA has become a mainstay in the cybersecurity space for a reason. It’s comprehensive and sensible, aligning with regulatory standards for access minimization and increased network oversight.

Despite its advantages, implementing ZTA is labor-intensive. Yet, the process contains valuable learning experiences that translate well when adopting other novel defensive strategies to meet modern digital demands.

How can analysts overcome struggles related to ZTA incorporation?

1. Legacy Systems Integration

Numerous organizations depend on legacy equipment, software and techniques because they have been effective enough. However, everyone must assume there is always more to do regarding digital defenses because every entity has an equal chance of becoming the next victim in an incident.

The mindset and equipment limitations may not support ZTA. Therefore, analysts should gradually adopt contemporary hardware and assets compatible with ZTA. IT workers and related technicians should consider adopting middleware to bridge the gap between new and traditional devices and interfaces.

2. User Experience Impact and Cultural Resistance

Employee workflows would need an overhaul to adapt to ZTA standards and tools, which hints at a few internal concerns. Time and resources invested into training would deter normal operations, and there would be resistance among some analysts to change their habits. Solidifying routines would take time, potentially leaving doors open for human error — accounting for 80% of cyber incidents that rise in price annually.

Verifying access requests could be cumbersome in ZTA systems. Overcome this using single sign-on methods with adaptive authentication measures to make it feel more native to conventional experiences. The software-as-a-service would evaluate each attempt and judge its risk profile, adjusting its verification requirements appropriately. It may ask for a password one day and biometrics the next. The combo gives employees time to adapt to the new policies.

3. Complexity of Implementation

ZTA architecture is intricate, involving data loss prevention tools, new communications protocols and employee oversight. ZTA’s depth is another reason for the resistance to training new employees. However, 50% of survey respondents claim they have less-than-satisfactory social engineering and phishing defenses, and 70% feel similarly about ransomware protections. Investing in more robust authentication measures could reduce the chances of these three incident variants from occurring.

Implementation is simpler to conceptualize if analysts incorporate ZTA in the most high-risk areas first and gradually expand it to the rest of the organization. White hat hackers, penetration testers and regular risk assessments are invaluable insights into the most significant security gaps and breach types in recent history. Incorporate ZTA to prevent these risks first. As upskilling occurs, install ZTA across the board.

4. Third-Party Risk Management

Many ZTA applications aren’t proprietary assets. Instead, they come from third-party vendors, which companies must vet for trustworthiness and value. Without standards or careful screening, offices may unintentionally depend on unsafe resources when building the foundation of their ZTA architecture.

Preventing this requires establishing third-party criteria and research areas, which can include but aren’t limited to:

  • Years of experience
  • Industry reputation
  • Aligning corporate values and goals
  • Consistency of other client experiences
  • Updated certifications and compliance adherence
  • Attitude toward using innovative technologies
  • Threat response plans

5. Cost Implications

ZTA architecture is known for its expensive initial investment, but case studies prove budgets shouldn’t concern implementation teams. For example, the New Jersey courts system underwent a mass-scale ZTA installation to permit remote work and virtual courtrooms. The estimated return on investment was $10.7 million for its 10,000 employees. The savings were from lower tech costs, increased productivity and reduced risk of numerous cyber incident attempts. Although new software suites are pricey, the long-term rewards justify the allocations.

6. Identity Management Visibility

Stakeholders must have visibility over who grants access within ZTA systems, and analysts with that privilege need this for their users, too. Tracking network traffic and user behavior in these dynamic environments is challenging, primarily across numerous platforms.

Around 32% of cyber incidents in 2024 involved data theft and leaking. Some reasons behind this could be alert fatigue and generalized burnout from observations or insufficient visibility tools from the beginning.

Centralized monitoring systems are the best way to streamline surveillance. Assets with automation tools, like artificial intelligence and machine learning, are critical complements for improving real-time action from employees.

7. Inconsistent Policies and Compliance Hurdles

Corporations must always refer to the leading regulatory agencies for the best cybersecurity practices in ZTA environments. However, their current adherence may not be enough after implementation.

Unifying policies to align with industry leaders is critical for compliance consistency. Seek assistance from auditors or consultants to find opportunities for improvement. The CISA provides a Zero Trust Maturity Model for beginning adaptation, while other organizations like NIST and ISO have expanded protocols for long-term ZTA sustainability.

8. Tech Stack Overlaps and Scalability

Digital transformation has overtaken most companies that can afford to trial a medley of tools. Survey indexes prove the average tech stack for a small, medium and large organization is 172, 255 and 664 apps, respectively. The surface area is ever-expanding and difficult to navigate, so adding ZTA breeds compatibility and redundancy issues. Therefore, scaling may feel daunting because every installation could lead to a unique integration problem.

However, this should inspire process discovery and digital minimalism. Organizations must discover what apps are business-critical and prioritize tools with ZTA support. Conduct an audit of the tech stack to evaluate what’s essential so ZTA implementation runs more smoothly. Companies can simplify by finding comprehensive solutions, which many cloud providers offer, for example. Paring tech stacks will encourage scaling potential without the headache of navigating hundreds of devices and applications.

All Trust in Zero Trust

Unwanted and manipulative access is the foundation for most incident variants, and ZTA delivers protection unlike other cybersecurity hygiene recommendations. It works alongside additional safety measures to comprise a holistic defensive strategy, increasing awareness in all IT and analyst teams about who they trust and why.

Recommend0 recommendationsPublished in IT Availability & Security

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author:

Zac Amos is the Features Editor at the tech magazine ReHack, where he covers cybersecurity and IT. When he’s not writing, you can find him reading up on the latest security trends. For more of his work, follow him on Twitter or LinkedIn.

Leave A Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.