Topic starter
08/06/2026 4:34 pm
TL;DR: Zero Trust can improve protection by authenticating and authorizing every user, device, and application, but Axiad argues it also adds complexity, cost, performance friction, and a mindset shift for IT and security teams. Those trade-offs matter because the model only works when identity governance, access review, and adaptive controls keep pace with the operational burden.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Axiad: “What Are the Disadvantages of Zero Trust? (And How to Overcome Them)”.
Key questions
Q: What are the biggest operational drawbacks of Zero Trust for IAM teams?
A: The biggest operational drawbacks are policy complexity, higher support demand, more exception handling, and potential performance or productivity impact.
Q: Why do zero trust programmes create so much user friction?
A: They usually layer repeated verification on top of workflows that were never designed for frequent re-authentication, especially where applications, sessions, and access paths are fragmented.
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.
Practitioner guidance
- Define the access decision model first Document which identities, device signals, and risk factors drive allow, step-up, or deny decisions before expanding Zero Trust coverage.
- Measure operational load before rollout Test how much additional support, policy tuning, and exception handling the identity team can absorb without degrading service delivery.
- Tune adaptive access thresholds Set explicit thresholds for device trust, user context, and application sensitivity so runtime policy changes are explainable and reviewable.
Bottom line: Zero Trust shifts security from the perimeter into identity governance, which makes policy ownership, review, and exception handling central to the programme.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
08/06/2026 6:15 pm
Zero Trust turns identity governance into the control plane. Once every user, device, and application is authenticated and authorised on each request, policy management becomes as important as the authentication stack itself. The article correctly surfaces that the governance burden is structural, not incidental. Practitioners should treat the policy model, not just the tooling, as the source of operational risk.
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: When should teams prioritise identity governance over broader control expansion?
A: Whenever control growth is outpacing the organisation’s ability to prove who or what can access systems. If access ownership, privilege scope, and revocation cannot be traced reliably, adding more controls increases complexity without improving assurance.
👉 Read our full editorial: What zero trust disadvantages mean for identity governance
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group