The Bottom Line: While network perimeter loses effectiveness as a primary protection layer, Zero Trust models offer an alternative but first require comprehensive transparency across all network actors.
Traditional network-based perimeter protection is losing effectiveness in the face of increasingly faster cyberattacks. Zero Trust models offer an approach to reorientation, but require comprehensive transparency regarding users, devices, and resources.
Traditional security architecture is based on the assumption that the network perimeter — a clearly defined boundary between internal and external networks — serves as the first line of defense. However, this approach is increasingly losing its protective effect as cyberattacks grow in speed and sophistication, and cross-organizational infrastructures blur the classical boundary definition.
Zero Trust approaches are based on a contrary principle: the assumption that no entity — neither within nor outside a network — is automatically trustworthy. Every access is verified independently. Rather than relying on perimeter defense, the focus shifts to context-based access controls that incorporate factors such as user identity, device type, location, and behavioral patterns.
For Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs), the operational challenge lies in creating the necessary transparency. Zero Trust implementations require detailed visibility across all digital objects and accesses — a prerequisite that many organizations must still establish. Without such transparency, new access rules cannot be formulated precisely and effectively.
Source: www.computerweekly.com · Published 25 June 2026
Lumi AI News — AI-assisted curation pursuant to Art. 50 EU AI Act. Paraphrasing and classification by Lumi News Pipeline v1.7.1.