What Is the Future and Technology of Zero Trust?

What Is the Future and Technology of Zero Trust?

In the dynamic realm of cybersecurity, the future of Zero Trust unfolds with promises and challenges. In the second part of the Zero Trust series, we explore the insights from industry experts, contemplate the intersection of trust and security, and chart a course for the evolving landscape of digital defense.

What does the future of Zero Trust look like?

In the evolving cybersecurity landscape, Zero Trust Architecture has emerged as a guiding light for organizations seeking to fortify their defenses against modern threats. As we peer into the future of Zero Trust, the following insights offer a clear perspective on what lies ahead.

A Continuous Evolution

The future of Zero Trust “is not an overnight revolution but a gradual evolution,” says Angus Macrae, Head of Cyber Security at King’s Service Center. It requires a fundamental shift in how we approach risk management. Traditionally, organizations trusted specific resources implicitly, but the future demands that nothing is inherently trusted. As Macrae wisely puts it, “an adversary already has a presence within your organization, and nothing should be implicitly trusted. Everything must be verified continually.”

Although this approach is more complex and, in some ways, less comforting, it’s a message we must embrace – “taking the world as it is, not as it ought to be.”

The Role of Cloud and Emerging Technologies

“Cloud-based security solutions are destined to play a pivotal role in Zero Trust deployments,” says Gary Hibberd, Professor of Communicating Cyber at Consultants Like Us. They offer scalability and flexibility, adapting to the ever-changing needs of organizations. Furthermore, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) will enhance the effectiveness of Zero Trust by swiftly and accurately identifying and responding to threats.

A Granular Approach to Implementation

“The future of Zero Trust revolves around comprehensive user authentication and authorization with every connection,” says John Grancarich, Chief Strategy Officer at Fortra. This, in turn, limits an attacke’’s lateral movement, even in the event of a breach. However, the challenge lies in extending this approach across various domains, including identity, networks, devices, applications, and data.

To systematically implement Zero Trust over time, organizations must identify the specific assets they most want to protect and the reasons behind this choice. Categorizing these assets is crucial, as it guides the implementation of tailored Zero Trust controls and monitoring solutions. “A well-designed, phased approach fosters internal communication and alignment among the key constituencies: business, IT, and security,” Grancarich explains further. “It enables progress in measured steps, allowing teams to assess their performance, learn from successes and failures, and gain confidence in their evolving approach.”

Can Zero Trust mean confidence?

The relationship between Zero Trust and confidence is a nuanced one, as cybersecurity professionals aptly point out. Although at the surface might seem like contradicting terms, not trusting be default anything and anyone can lead to more confidence.

The Fallacy of Absolute Confidence

It is essential to dispel the notion that Zero Trust equates to unwavering confidence, Angus Macrae stresses. As Voltaire famously said, “Doubt is an unpleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one.” Having complete and implicit confidence in Zero Trust, or any security model, misses the point entirely, Macrae explains. The ever-changing nature of security and threats can quickly render such confidence delusional. However, a well-crafted Zero Trust architecture can substantially reduce overall cyber risk and safeguard against common threats.

The Illusion of Trust

Some cybersecurity experts, like Gary Hibberd, caution against a blind trust in technology, emphasizing the adage, “In screen we trust.” Is technology the cure to all our cyber-related problems? The consensus seems to be that such unwavering confidence is unattainable. Instead, a “Trust, but verify” principle is favored, acknowledging the importance of trust while maintaining a vigilant stance.

Zero Trust as a Prerequisite for Confidence

In a broader sense, says Kurt Thomas, Senior System Engineer at Fortra, Zero Trust can be considered a prerequisite for confidence. Failing to implement Zero Trust is akin to leaving the safe door open. But consider why you secured the safe in the first place – there was a reason. In this context, Zero Trust provides “paradoxically” a foundation for trust and confidence in the security of critical assets.

What is the next step for the cybersecurity industry?

As the cybersecurity industry continues to evolve, the question of our next steps looms large.

A Return to Fundamentals

One resounding call is for the industry to mature and avoid chasing buzzwords, unicorns, or silver bullets. Angus Macrae says that instead, the focus should shift back to the basics: reading, continual learning, and sharing good information. Open-minded discussions that delve into the complexities of our ever-evolving security landscape are vital.

We must extract the full potential from existing tools while remaining vigilant about what’s on the horizon. For example, AI brings a paradigm shift, and businesses are advised to thoughtfully consider the possibilities, both positive and negative, that AI introduces. AI holds the potential to be a powerful ally in our ongoing battle against cyber threats, but it also presents security risks that must be proactively addressed.

Redefining Security Posture

The essence of Zero Trust, which redefines security based on trust rather than perimeters, remains a central theme. Continuous verification of user and device identities, coupled with the principle of granting access on a need-to-know basis, significantly reduces the risk of cyberattacks. However, it’s essential to recognize that, like any security principle, there are no absolute guarantees, says Gary Hibberd.

Minimum Privilege and Zero Trust’s Historical Roots

A broader perspective on Zero Trust reveals its roots in the concept of “minimum privilege required.” Kurt Thomas elaborates that this approach, drawn from the military’s practices, emphasizes minimizing the attack surface. It is an approach based on the fundamental premise that allowing everyone and every process to have unrestricted access is a recipe for disaster.

Historically, the military developed processes to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and physical assets. This security approach has deep roots, going back to a time when secrets primarily existed in the form of physical documents and spoken words. With the advent of computers, data protection in a hostile environment became a paramount concern.

The world of cybersecurity inherited principles from the military’s experience, and Zero Trust emerged as a reflection of this legacy. In this sense, Zero Trust isn’t going anywhere, as the fundamental need to safeguard data in a challenging and adversarial digital world remains a constant.

As the industry matures, wisdom emerges: cybersecurity thrives on fundamentals, embraces the AI paradigm, and upholds the trust-versus-security equilibrium. With a nod to history and an eye on the future, we march forward, fortified and vigilant, in the ever-advancing realm of digital protection.

Read part one of this series: The Current Challenges of Adopting Zero Trust and What You Can Do About Them.

If you enjoyed these blogs, make sure you download our eBook on the challenges, promises, and future of Zero Trust.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in this guest author article are solely those of the contributor, and do not necessarily reflect those of Tripwire.