Zero trust promises a new approach to cybersecurity modeling: often contrasted against the traditional castle-and-moat style of architecture. It aims to eradicate any trust that is inherited and shared between an organization’s devices and data.
However, this radical re-positioning of security controls and access provisioning comes with challenges. In this guide, we address those that most commonly disrupt new zero-trust projects.
The Zero Trust Security Model is a cybersecurity framework that assumes that threats can originate from both outside and inside an organization’s network.
This approach requires strict verification of every user and device, regardless of their:
Since zero trust represents a paradigm shift, the sweeping changes of zero trust implementation are numerous. Splitting them into their individual components can help highlight the key principles.
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) is one way that user verification is achieved. Rather than password-based authentication – where an attacker only needs to steal a username and password – MFA requires multiple forms of identification.
For instance, a user may need to provide both a password and a USB security token before gaining access. This can raise the difficulty for attackers by a factor of two, three, four, or more.
It’s not enough to verify the end-users: each device and process needs to be verified as well. Here’s how the endpoint verification looks like:
Zero trust doesn’t stop at authentication: devices and applications are constantly requesting and transferring data.
Should a flaw arise in a protocol, device, or application, it could be the last link in an exploitable chain. If these flaws line up sufficiently, an attacker could string together an attack path and leverage any assumed permissions from other processes.
Dividing networks into smaller, isolated segments allows for checks on legitimacy to be implemented across even highly-distributed environments. This is achieved by software and hardware-defined perimeters that analyze and filter the packets traveling through.
This way, whenever a client requests data, the Software Defined Perimeter (SDP) controller compares the client’s requested access against its internal policies. These policies recognize the gateway each service needs to go through, and assess the security level of the client itself.
If all these align with the expected risk profile and behavior, then the authentication process can be initiated.
This SDP – like a firewall – is the active protection that can help restrict users and devices to only the specific resources each needs to perform their specific tasks.
Zero trust isn’t a particular product – or a single technique. As a result, established organizations may run into a few common challenges.
Legacy systems are still common within manufacturing, healthcare, and finance sectors: all industries that stand the highest real-world cybersecurity gains from implementing zero trust.
There are two main challenges with legacy systems:
Another difficulty with legacy systems is their implicit reliance on proprietary hardware or software.
This software or hardware usually has minimal or incomplete documentation that often accompanies them, making it challenging to identify and address zero-trust difficulties ahead of time.
Organizations frequently rely on multiple cloud service providers, each with its own set of security tools, policies, and access controls.
Unfortunately, this comes up with a lot of challenges:
A zero-trust model demands a tighter degree of continuous monitoring and administration than the single-firewall approach of perimeter security. In many cases, this requires additional personnel or the use of managed services to maintain the system effectively.
Here’s how to overcome the most common challenges of the zero trust security model..
Zero Trust implementation is tough with legacy systems. Start with a legacy asset discovery to identify devices, users, and software. Then, conduct a risk assessment to determine which resources each tool needs and who depends on them.
Authentication is often the first step, but re-coding legacy systems is costly. Identity orchestration platforms offer a simpler alternative by enforcing policies between users and applications without changing the source code.
Here’s how to beat the legacy challenge:
Network segmentation protects legacy systems by addressing vulnerabilities like outdated software. SDP controllers block attack signatures, while proxy servers offer security for unsupported systems.
Zero Trust implementation increases demands on security personnel, requiring efficient workflows and new tools. Balancing granular visibility with actionable insights is key. Fine-grained logs offer detailed usage data, but analysts must transform this into meaningful actions.
Centralizing visibility into assets, users, and permissions creates a baseline for analysis. Automation processes raw data to establish behavioral norms and detect anomalies.
Analysts then focus on defining policies for device and data access – here’s the step-by-step process:
Early-stage oversight is critical to address technical gaps. A roadmap detailing suppliers, strategies, timelines, and responsibilities ensures clarity and prevents missteps.
Zero Trust authentication can disrupt workflows, leading to user resistance.
MFA may feel cumbersome, but user-friendly options like passwordless authentication (biometrics) or Single Sign-On (SSO) can reduce friction while ensuring security.
Make sure to combine security with convenience to improve user adoption.
Prioritizing user-friendly solutions ensures strong security without compromising efficiency, making Zero Trust adoption smoother for end-users.
Consolidating your network, endpoint, and user security into one pane of glass is a proven method for streamlining zero trust implementation. Check Point Infinity isn’t just a piece of third-party security software: it’s a zero trust accelerator that automatically discovers all connected devices – from laptops to industrial control systems and medical devices – and pulls their real-time network and user data into view.
With this new perspective, Infinity then lets analysts segment devices into their specific subnetworks.
These access requirements are enforced at each network gateway by Infinity’s Next-Gen Firewall.
On top of these access policies, the firewall also monitors the ongoing behavior of each connection; in the event of anomalous or high-risk behavior, the connection is automatically shut down.
Alongside the extra tools available for security analysts, Infinity helps keep end-user friction low with the variety of:
It also offers secure data handling – both in transit and at rest – with encryption, tracking, and data loss prevention mechanisms. To explore how Infinity could be your first step toward zero-trust implementation, schedule a demo.