Topic starter
27/10/2026 7:05 pm
TL;DR: IIJ Flex Mobility Service/ZTNA now protects over 300,000 devices, according to Absolute Security, highlighting how Japanese enterprises are pairing remote access expansion with zero trust network access and device-status verification as ransomware pressure and hybrid work intensify. The governance challenge is not access alone, but keeping remote access resilient when controls or endpoints fail.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Absolute Security: “IIJ Flex Mobility Service/ZTNA Now Protecting Over 300,000 devices”.
Key questions
Q: How should security teams govern third-party remote access in practice?
A: Treat third-party remote access as a governed identity path, not a networking exception.
Q: When does ZTNA become a resilience control rather than just a connectivity control?
A: ZTNA becomes a resilience control when the organisation depends on it to keep access safe during control failure, degraded endpoints, or incident response.
Q: What are the signs that permissive remote-access policies have become a hidden risk?
A: A clear sign is when temporary remote-access exceptions remain in place long after the reason for them has passed.
Practitioner guidance
- Map remote access paths to explicit trust decisions Inventory every remote access entry point, the identity signals it consumes, and the policy conditions required before access is granted.
- Add device health checks to access policy Require current endpoint status, not just user authentication, before granting access to sensitive applications and admin functions.
- Test fallback access when controls fail Run resilience exercises that simulate degraded security controls, then verify whether business users can restore access without weakening policy.
Bottom line: Remote access is increasingly governed as a resilience and identity problem, not only as a networking problem.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →