Topic starter
22/07/2026 4:38 pm
TL;DR: Microsegmentation adoption remains between 5% and 20% of enterprises even as the category is forecast to grow from $8.2 billion in 2025 to more than $41 billion by 2034, according to Elisity and Gartner. The gap shows that lateral movement reduction is still a governance problem, not just a tooling choice.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Elisity: “Top Microsegmentation Solutions for 2026: Vendor Comparison and Buyer’s Guide”.
Key questions
Q: Where does IP-based microsegmentation fail in practice?
A: It fails when network location is treated as the trust boundary for actors whose identities, sessions, and permissions change faster than the subnet model.
Q: Why does inconsistent segmentation increase lateral movement risk?
A: Inconsistent segmentation increases risk because east-west traffic is only contained where enforcement is actually aligned.
Q: How do security teams know if identity-based segmentation is actually working?
A: Teams should test whether a compromised or simulated compromised host can reach anything beyond the minimum required set of services.
Practitioner guidance
- Define segmentation by trust boundary, not by product category Inventory where the environment actually needs internal containment across user workstations, servers, OT, IoT, and cloud workloads.
- Prioritise unmanaged and hybrid assets first Start with the devices that cannot reliably run an agent, because those assets are most likely to remain outside traditional endpoint-centric segmentation coverage.
- Tie segmentation to identity and privilege reviews Use identity, role, and privileged-access data to identify which accounts and services should never be able to reach certain internal segments.
Bottom line: Microsegmentation remains under-deployed relative to the scale of lateral-movement risk, so internal containment is still a common governance gap.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 6 hours ago by NHI Mgmt Group
24/07/2026 4:11 pm
Microsegmentation is now a lateral-movement governance problem, not just a network design choice. The article’s core signal is that the market is expanding while actual deployment remains narrow, which means many organisations still rely on perimeter assumptions inside environments that have already dissolved. For identity teams, the issue is especially relevant because compromised accounts, service identities, and privileged sessions become more damaging when internal traversal is easy. Practitioners should treat containment as a governance control with explicit scope, ownership, and success criteria.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should organisations prioritise first, segmentation or identity-based access control?
A: Prioritise identity-based access control when your environment is defined by cloud workloads, service accounts, and machine identities that move faster than network boundaries. Segmentation still matters, but identity gives policy a stable reference point for who or what should be allowed to connect. That makes least privilege easier to enforce and easier to audit.
👉 Read our full editorial: Microsegmentation still lags adoption despite lateral movement risk
This post was modified 6 hours ago by NHI Mgmt Group