Topic starter
11/07/2026 1:53 pm
TL;DR: Critical infrastructure in OT still depends on indirect connectivity, legacy software and assumptions of isolation that do not hold under pressure, according to ColorTokens. OT environments need containment that reduces lateral movement and limits operational impact when compromise happens.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by ColorTokens: “Securing our Critical Infrastructure with Zero Trust”.
Key questions
Q: Why does indirect connectivity create such high mission risk in critical infrastructure?
A: Indirect connectivity creates risk because it gives attackers workable paths into environments that teams believe are isolated.
Q: How do security teams know whether containment is actually working?
A: They should test whether the identity can still execute privileged actions after revocation, not just whether the API call succeeded.
Q: What breaks when Zero Trust stops at authentication?
A: Zero Trust breaks when teams stop at authentication because proving identity does not automatically define what that identity may do.
Practitioner guidance
- Map indirect OT connectivity Inventory vendor access, shared infrastructure, remote monitoring tools and other indirect paths that create connectivity in supposedly isolated environments.
- Enforce microsegmentation around critical assets Separate OT into small trust zones so compromise in one area cannot automatically reach field operations, safety systems or other mission-critical assets.
- Bind access to operational need Scope users, systems and vendors to the minimum assets they must reach, and prevent broad internal trust from crossing operational boundaries.
Bottom line: Critical infrastructure remains vulnerable when OT security relies on the fiction of isolation rather than controlled connectivity and mission-scoped access.
Glossary terms: Identity-Aware Containment, Microsegmentation, Indirect Connectivity, Mission Continuity
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 1 hour ago by NHI Mgmt Group
11/07/2026 2:04 pm
Identity-aware containment is the real zero trust control for OT. OT resilience fails when organisations treat authentication as the finish line. In critical infrastructure, the issue is not merely who logs in, but whether that identity can move laterally, reach adjacent assets, or disrupt mission support systems. Practitioners should treat access boundaries as operational safeguards, not administrative conveniences.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should critical infrastructure teams prioritise: patching or segmentation?
A: When patch windows are constrained, segmentation must come first because it reduces exposure while vulnerable assets remain in service. Patching still matters, but it cannot be the only control in OT where downtime is expensive or unsafe. The right order is to contain the asset, then remediate it on the schedule operations can tolerate.
👉 Read our full editorial: Zero trust for critical infrastructure depends on identity-aware containment