Topic starter
25/06/2026 3:02 pm
TL;DR: COVID-era cloud migration, remote work, and IoT expansion have made perimeter-based security models unreliable, while digital certificates have become a core mechanism for authenticating people, devices, and services, according to DigiCert. The key issue is not certificate presence alone but whether trust can be continuously issued, verified, renewed, and revoked at scale.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by DigiCert: “Building Trust In An Untrusting World”.
Key questions
Q: How should teams govern certificate lifecycle management in multi-cloud environments?
A: Teams should govern CLM as part of the broader machine identity stack, not as a standalone certificate tool.
Q: Why do perimeter-based security models break down in cloud and IoT environments?
A: They fail because location is no longer a reliable proxy for trust.
Q: What are the biggest failure modes in certificate trust management?
A: The most common failures are unmanaged issuance, delayed renewal, poor inventory visibility, and weak revocation discipline.
Practitioner guidance
- Map certificate ownership and lifecycle states Build a complete inventory of certificates, owners, expiration dates, issuance sources, and revocation paths so that no trust asset is unmanaged.
- Automate renewal and revocation workflows Reduce the window between certificate expiry, replacement, and removal by automating renewals and revocations across cloud, on-premises, and hosted environments.
- Tie device trust to authentication policy Require certificates and device identity checks for IoT and other connected endpoints instead of assuming network presence equals trust.
Bottom line: The article shows why perimeter trust no longer scales in a world of cloud, remote work, and IoT.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
25/06/2026 4:19 pm
Perimeter trust has collapsed because trust can no longer be inferred from network position. Cloud migration and remote work dissolved the inside-outside boundary that perimeter security depended on. That means identity assurance must move closer to the transaction itself, with trust revalidated across devices, services, and sessions rather than assumed from network location. Practitioners should treat perimeter logic as a broken design assumption, not a partially modernised control.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should organisations do when vendors’ connected devices participate in their trust model?
A: They should assess the vendor trust chain, including update channels, support access, and authentication controls, before allowing the device into production use. If the organisation cannot govern the upstream trust relationship, then the device should be treated as an external dependency with explicit limits.
👉 Read our full editorial: Trust, certificates, and the collapse of perimeter security