Notifications
Clear all
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.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Axiad: What Are the Disadvantages of Zero Trust? (And How to Overcome Them)
By the numbers:
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams implement Zero Trust without creating too much user friction?
A: Start with the highest-risk access paths, then use adaptive policies to reduce unnecessary prompts for low-risk sessions.
Q: Why do non-human identities complicate Zero Trust programmes?
A: Because service accounts, API keys, and tokens often operate outside the human access review cycle, but they still carry standing privileges and persistent trust relationships.
Q: What breaks when Zero Trust is rolled out before identity cleanup?
A: Policy decisions become only as good as the stale data underneath them.
Practitioner guidance
- Baseline identity data before broadening policy scope Inventory users, workloads, service accounts, and application identities before expanding Zero Trust enforcement.
- Tune adaptive access to real access patterns Test conditional access, MFA, and passwordless flows against common employee and admin journeys.
- Extend Zero Trust governance to NHIs Apply the same verification discipline to service accounts, API keys, tokens, and certificates.
What's in the full article
Axiad's full blog post covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Specific ways adaptive access control can reduce MFA friction without weakening policy enforcement
- Practical discussion of how passwordless and biometric approaches change user experience in Zero Trust flows
- Vendor-framed guidance on balancing security controls against productivity impact in everyday access scenarios
- Additional context on authentication services and single-sign-on SaaS platforms for Zero Trust deployment
👉 Read Axiad's analysis of zero trust disadvantages and identity governance →
Zero trust drawbacks: what IAM teams need to account for?
Explore further
08/06/2026 6:15 pm
Zero Trust is only as strong as the identity governance beneath it. The model assumes organisations can continuously verify who or what is asking for access, but that assumption collapses if entitlements, service accounts, and device identities are poorly governed. In other words, Zero Trust does not remove identity risk, it concentrates it in the quality of access decisions. Practitioners should treat governance maturity as the precondition, not the by-product, of Zero Trust adoption.
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 Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which explains why Zero Trust programmes often stumble in the identity layer.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do teams know whether Zero Trust is actually working?
A: Look for lower exception rates, fewer access-related helpdesk escalations, and tighter control over privileged and non-human accounts. The key signal is whether access decisions are consistent, explainable, and sustainable without creating shadow approvals or manual bypasses. If the organisation needs constant overrides, the model is not yet stable.
👉 Read our full editorial: What zero trust disadvantages mean for identity governance
