Topic starter
24/10/2026 8:49 pm
TL;DR: 82% of organisations now view zero trust as essential, yet only 17% have fully implemented it, with tool and vendor sprawl the main barrier, according to Ordr. Fragmented policy ownership leaves access enforcement inconsistent and exceptions harder to govern.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Ordr: “Zero Trust Statistics 2026 Report”.
By the numbers:
- 82% of organizations consider universal zero-trust network access essential, but only 17% have fully implemented it.
- Tool and vendor sprawl is the top barrier to zero trust adoption, cited by 26% of organizations.
- 78% of organizations manage secure-access policies across more than two separate systems.
Key questions
Q: Why do excessive permissions create so much risk in Zero Trust programmes?
A: Excessive permissions expand the number of paths an attacker can use after the first compromise.
Q: How do organisations know if zero trust controls are actually working?
A: They know the controls are working when they can inventory privileged identities, prove access is time-bound, and show that rotation and revocation happen on schedule.
Q: What breaks when zero trust policies are split across multiple tools?
A: Zero trust breaks down when policy decisions are fragmented across different consoles because enforcement becomes inconsistent, auditability weakens, and exceptions multiply.
Practitioner guidance
- Consolidate access policy ownership Assign one operating owner for access policy across IAM, PAM, ZTNA, and segmentation controls so that changes propagate consistently.
- Prioritise third-party access first Use contractors, suppliers, and external partners as the first rollout group because their access paths are usually easier to isolate and measure.
- Reduce duplicate enforcement points Inventory every system that can approve or enforce access and retire redundant policy logic that creates conflicting decisions.
Bottom line: Zero trust is now widely accepted, but many organisations still lack the control coherence needed to enforce it consistently across real access paths.
Glossary terms: Zero Trust, Zero Trust Network, Policy Sprawl, Privilege Drift
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 6 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
25/10/2026 11:12 am
Zero trust has moved from architecture to governance problem: the limiting factor is no longer conceptual acceptance but whether access policy can be enforced consistently across identity, network, cloud, and third-party channels. Where control ownership is split across multiple systems, organisations do not have one zero trust model, they have several partial ones. Practitioners should treat policy coherence as the core programme objective.
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: How should organisations sequence zero trust when third-party access is a major risk?
A: They should start with the access paths that are easiest to isolate and most exposed to external users, usually contractor and supplier access. That approach gives the programme a measurable boundary, reduces broad network exposure, and forces governance decisions to become operational before the rest of the architecture is modernised.
👉 Read our full editorial: Zero trust adoption is outpacing implementation across enterprises
This post was modified 6 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group