Topic starter
14/09/2026 10:10 am
TL;DR: Security operations overhead can be reduced by closing access by default, enforcing least privilege continuously, and automating policy enforcement, according to Zero Networks. Customers reportedly save 10 to 15 hours per engineer each week and lower total cost of ownership by 87%; the real shift is that containment and access control move from manual response work to architecture, which is especially relevant as identity sprawl, machine identities, and AI adoption expand the attack surface.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Zero Networks: “How Zero Trust Architecture Reduces Security OpEx”.
By the numbers:
- Zero Networks says customers save 10 to 15 hours per week, per engineer, on policy maintenance.
- Zero Networks says its customers achieve 87% lower cost of ownership at enterprise scale.
- Zero Networks says 80% of executives are under pressure to reduce the cost of security.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when trust is granted by default in a Zero Trust environment?
A: When trust is granted by default, compromised identities and endpoints can keep accessing resources after they should have been challenged or blocked.
Q: Why do service accounts and machine identities matter under NIS2?
A: Service accounts and machine identities matter because they often carry the permissions that move data, trigger reports, and feed AI workflows.
Q: How can security teams tell whether Zero Trust is actually reducing business risk?
A: They should look for shrinking attack paths, lower lateral movement opportunity, faster containment, and better uptime during incidents.
Practitioner guidance
- Close internal access by default Review which internal paths remain reachable without explicit verification and remove broad allow rules where they are not needed.
- Map identities to least-privilege segments Assign users, service accounts, and privileged workflows to the smallest practical access scope so one compromise cannot traverse the whole environment.
- Automate policy creation and enforcement Replace manual rule tuning with automated policy updates so changes in workloads do not re-open access paths or create exception debt.
Bottom line: Zero trust architecture is being positioned as an operating model that reduces both exposure and the human effort required to maintain control.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
14/09/2026 10:11 am
Closed-by-default architecture is now an operations control, not just a breach-control concept. The article shows that zero trust is being judged on day-to-day workload, not only on theoretical security posture. That matters because control designs that cannot be sustained operationally are usually the ones that decay first. For practitioners, the real question is whether access policy can remain closed without creating manual burden that teams later work around.
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.
- Only 13% of organisations feel extremely prepared for the reality of agentic AI despite the majority racing toward autonomous adoption, according to the 2026 Infrastructure Identity Survey.
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: Zero trust architecture can cut security OpEx and shrink blast radius