It’s been nearly two decades since former-Forrester analyst John Kindervag brought the zero-trust concept into the mainstream tech industry, advising organizations to “trust no one” and “verify everything.”But it’s been a long haul for zero trust.While respondents to a recent CyberRisk Alliance (CRA) survey of 205 security and IT leaders almost universally regard zero-trust as the right path forward, nearly 20 years later, less than one-third have actually implemented zero trust in their organizations.Many blame the high costs of implementation and the complexities of introducing zero-trust practices to existing workflows. Others say they can’t get leadership buy-in and struggle to show ROI for something that defies easy explanation.Security pros need to understand that zero trust isn’t a discrete security product: it’s a strategy. On the one hand, it doesn’t have to mean ripping and replacing legacy IT, but sometimes it does require that kind of bold action. Zero trust has not been designed to disrupt the user experience, but its emphasis on authentication and least-privileged access could frustrate those unaccustomed to the extra security scrutiny.“Our culture values employee empowerment and collaborative innovation,” writes one respondent. “To some, zero-trust is considered draconian.”The high cost was another reason some respondents are balking at zero trust:“Cost is at the top,” said another respondent. “It has to make sense for us. We can turn on MFA for some of our systems already, that’s included in software packages we own. To do zero-trust we are probably looking at another software package and the question as to why would be asked. The disruption that it could cause to the users may be seen as enough to prevent us from implementing.”
Related Events
Get daily email updates
SC Media's daily must-read of the most current and pressing daily news
You can skip this ad in 5 seconds





