Topic starter
11/07/2026 8:35 pm
TL;DR: The global microsegmentation market is projected to grow from $8.2 billion in 2025 to over $41 billion by 2034, yet Gartner estimates only 5% to 20% of enterprises have adopted it, leaving lateral movement widely uncontained, according to Elisity. Identity-based enforcement is becoming the practical test of zero trust, not just a network design choice.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Elisity: “What are the Top Microsegmentation Solutions for 2026?”.
Key questions
Q: What fails when microsegmentation is only partially deployed?
A: Partial deployment leaves internal trust paths that attackers can still use after the first compromise.
Q: Why does lateral movement remain so common in segmented environments?
A: Lateral movement persists when segmentation rules do not cover the actual communication paths attackers use.
Q: How do teams know if microsegmentation is actually working?
A: Microsegmentation is working when a compromised workload cannot reach anything outside its explicit policy boundary.
Practitioner guidance
- Quantify east-west exposure by segment Inventory where workloads, devices, and identity groups can still talk laterally without explicit policy.
- Prioritise unmanaged and shared devices first Start segmentation coverage with OT, IoT, medical, and other unmanaged assets that cannot run software agents.
- Tie segmentation rules to identity signals Use user, workload, and device identity where available so policy can survive IP changes, cloud mobility, and shared infrastructure.
Bottom line: Microsegmentation is a containment control, not a design preference, and partial adoption leaves internal movement paths open after initial compromise.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
11/07/2026 9:03 pm
Microsegmentation adoption gap: the real governance issue is not tool availability but incomplete control coverage. Enterprises can discuss zero trust architecture for years while leaving large internal segments open to movement after compromise. Practitioners should treat deployment coverage as a governance metric, not a design aspiration.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should organisations prioritise agentless microsegmentation over agent-based coverage?
A: They should prioritise the model that matches the estate they actually run. Agent-based tools can be strong on managed servers, but agentless coverage is often more realistic for OT, IoT, and other unmanaged assets. The right sequence is usually coverage first, then deeper optimisation where agents are viable.
👉 Read our full editorial: Microsegmentation adoption gaps are leaving lateral movement exposed