Topic starter
24/10/2026 8:49 pm
TL;DR: Distributed work and cloud services erase the perimeter Zero Trust depended on, according to Todyl. Access policy has to follow identity and segmentation across every path, or location-based trust will keep slipping back in.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Todyl: “Achieving Zero Trust with SASE: A Practical Roadmap for Modern Network Security”.
Key questions
Q: What is the difference between SASE and Zero Trust in practice?
A: In practice, Zero Trust is the governance logic that decides who or what should get access, while SASE is the architecture that helps enforce those decisions across the network.
Q: What are the signs that a zero trust rollout is failing in practice?
A: Common warning signs include overlapping tools that do not integrate well, inconsistent policy enforcement across environments, weak visibility into asset and transaction flows, and users bypassing controls because processes are too cumbersome.
Q: What breaks when organisations keep relying on perimeter security instead of Zero Trust?
A: Perimeter security breaks down when trust is assumed after initial access.
Practitioner guidance
- Map every access path and trust boundary Inventory users, endpoints, SaaS applications, data locations and east-west traffic flows before writing policy so your zero-trust design reflects reality rather than assumptions.
- Make identity the primary control plane Tie access to a verified identity provider, enforce MFA, and scope entitlements by role so network location does not decide access.
- Segment internal traffic as aggressively as external traffic Apply micro-segmentation and deny-by-default rules to internal connections so lateral movement is constrained even after initial access is granted.
Bottom line: Zero trust fails when network location still acts as a proxy for trust, because distributed work and cloud services erase the perimeter the model depended on.
Glossary terms: Zero Trust, Secure Access Service Edge, Zero Trust Network, Micro-segmentation
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 11:13 am
Zero trust fails when the organisation treats network location as a substitute for identity assurance. The article is right to emphasise that distributed work and cloud adoption have dissolved the old perimeter, but the deeper governance issue is that many environments still let location, not principal verification, shape access decisions. That is a control design problem, not a tooling problem. Practitioners should re-centre policy on verified identity and contextual access decisions.
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 apply Zero Trust to non-human identities?
A: Start by treating each non-human identity as a controllable access path, not a background system object. Apply least privilege, session scoping, ownership, and continuous revocation to service accounts, API keys, certificates, and automation agents. The goal is to reduce the blast radius of any one identity and ensure access changes when risk changes.
👉 Read our full editorial: Zero trust with SASE needs identity-first control and visibility
This post was modified 6 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group