Let’s Bust Some Myths About Zero Trust
There are a lot of misperceptions and myths about zero-trust security. Here are some of the biggest — and why they’re wrong.
There are a lot of misperceptions and myths about zero-trust security. Here are some of the biggest — and why they’re wrong.
Charged with keeping organizations sage, IT teams have focused on preventing and stopping risks. But zero trust security offers a whole new paradigm, one that recognizes the growing need for collaboration.
Securing IT systems can be a herculean task. The state of Oklahoma found a way to do it: Officials used a zero-trust cybersecurity model.
One of the trickiest parts of implementing zero trust is the cultural shift because it requires stakeholder departments and end users to go through more security layers.
“Words matter. And how we communicate trust — or a lack of trust — to those in our organizations impacts how people react to and receive the cyber practices and processes we’re advocating for.”
Driven by a range of mandates, federal IT leaders are asking themselves how far along they are on the zero trust learning curve.
Zero trust might not be a cure-all government security, but it’s important to understand how it works and the difference it can make.
Zero trust is a buzzword that’s gaining steam. But in simple terms, this model is enabling remote work and improving user experiences.
“A lot of people get confused about zero trust. It is to some extent a marketing term. Zero trust as a concept is relatively straightforward.”
At the crux of every cybersecurity strategy is an identity data management challenge: How much information does an agency need to verify the identity of an individual requesting access to network resources?