Topic starter
12/06/2026 10:21 pm
TL;DR: Zero Trust can add complexity, cost, manpower demands, performance friction, and productivity overhead when organisations try to apply it across users, devices, and applications, while also relying on adaptive access and stronger authentication to offset those pressures, according to Axiad. The real issue is not Zero Trust itself but whether identity governance can absorb the operating burden it creates.
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 breaks when Zero Trust is implemented without identity governance?
A: Zero Trust breaks when the policy engine is enforcing stale or incomplete identity data.
Q: When do organisations need adaptive access instead of stricter authentication alone?
A: They need it when repeated verification would otherwise block legitimate work or overload support teams.
Q: What are the signs that Zero Trust is creating more friction than control?
A: Common signs include repeated login prompts, rising help desk demand, denied access to routine tools, and teams creating workarounds to keep work moving.
Practitioner guidance
- Map Zero Trust to identity operating load Measure how many authentication, authorisation, and exception decisions your current IAM team can absorb before service quality drops.
- Tighten adaptive access policy design Use risk signals that your environment can actually sustain, such as device trust, application sensitivity, and user context.
- Review access paths for productivity bottlenecks Trace the access journeys that trigger the most help desk tickets, repeated prompts, or denied requests.
Bottom line: Zero Trust creates real operational strain when every access decision has to be authenticated and authorised at scale.
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
13/06/2026 1:04 am
Zero Trust becomes an identity governance problem the moment it leaves the perimeter. The model is often described as an access decision framework, but its practical limit is governance capacity. When every request requires verification, the programme depends on IAM, lifecycle controls, and policy operations working at a much higher cadence than perimeter security ever required. Practitioners should read Zero Trust as an operating model that only works when identity governance can keep pace.
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 teams govern Zero Trust across users, devices, applications, and NHIs?
A: They should use one governance model with role-specific controls, not separate islands of enforcement. Human access, device trust, application permissions, and non-human identities all need clear ownership, review cycles, and exception handling so that continuous verification does not become unmanaged complexity.
👉 Read our full editorial: Zero Trust disadvantages expose identity governance gaps
This post was modified 6 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group