Catalog
concept#Security#Architecture#Cloud#Governance

Zero Trust

A security-centric architectural paradigm that assumes no identity or resource is inherently trusted. Authorization is based on continuous verification and the principle of least privilege.

Zero Trust is a security paradigm that assumes no user, device, or network is inherently trusted.
Established
High

Classification

  • High
  • Organizational
  • Architectural
  • Advanced

Technical context

Identity providers (SAML, OIDC)SIEM/logging platformsAPI gateways and service meshes

Principles & goals

Never trust, always verify — no implicit trustLeast privilege — minimal, context‑sensitive rightsContinuous verification and observability
Build
Enterprise, Domain, Team

Use cases & scenarios

Compromises

  • Missing or faulty signals may cause incorrect denials
  • Excessive lockdowns can impact productivity and business processes
  • Inconsistent implementations create security gaps
  • Start with critical paths and sensitive data
  • Automate policy testing and rollbacks
  • Use short‑lived credentials and service identities

I/O & resources

  • Identity data and group memberships
  • Device and signal telemetry
  • Inventory of assets and data flows
  • Fine‑grained access control policies
  • Audit logs and forensic telemetry
  • Reduced lateral movement and improved detection

Description

Zero Trust is a security paradigm that assumes no user, device, or network is inherently trusted. Access decisions rely on continuous verification, least privilege, and contextual signals. It is applied to protect distributed cloud environments, hybrid infrastructures, and modern identity-driven access scenarios.

✔

  • Reduced attack surface via microsegmentation and minimal privileges
  • Improved protection for distributed cloud and hybrid environments
  • Fine‑grained, auditable access controls and traceability

✖

  • High effort for inventory and policy modeling
  • Operational complexity for distributed telemetry and decision services
  • Dependence on robust identity and device management

  • Percentage of authenticated accesses

    Measures share of accesses secured by verified identities.

  • Number of false positive/negative access denials

    Captures policy engine misdecisions and their impact.

  • Time to recover after compromise

    Time from detection to full recovery of affected services.

Google BeyondCorp (concept example)

Google describes a Zero‑Trust‑like model to remove the traditional perimeter and apply context‑based access control.

NIST reference architecture (guide)

NIST Special Publication SP 800‑207 provides a structured definition, deployment scenarios, and recommendations for Zero Trust.

Enterprise migration to cloud

Practical case studies show how organizations use Zero Trust to harden SaaS access and hybrid networks.

1

Begin with an inventory of identities, assets, and data flows

2

Define zoning, policies and minimum privileges

3

Gradually introduce technical controls and monitoring

⚠️ Technical debt & bottlenecks

  • Legacy systems without API controls remain exposed
  • Ad‑hoc policies increase long‑term maintenance costs
  • Lack of automation hinders scaling
Identity managementTelemetry/observabilityPolicy decision services
  • Introducing only MFA without policy anchoring
  • Collecting telemetry but not using it for decisions
  • Using Zero Trust as marketing label without technical implementation
  • Forcing hard policies too quickly without monitoring
  • Incomplete inventory leads to gaps
  • Lack of user training causes frustration
Identity and access management skillsNetwork and security architectureObservability and incident response
Robust identity and access managementAvailability and integrity of telemetry dataFine‑grained policy enforcement at service level
  • • Dependence on consistent identity data
  • • Network latency may affect policy execution
  • • Regulatory requirements on data location and logging