Topic starter
19/12/2025 11:15 am
TL;DR: The DoW's Zero Trust for Operational Technology framework extends zero trust into environments where predictable communications, high availability, and machine-to-machine traffic force identity, segmentation, and continuous verification to carry the design load, according to Corsha analysis. For machine identity programmes, OT zero trust turns access scope, behavioural verification, and safe containment into core governance decisions, not IT overlays.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Corsha: “title”.
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: Why do OT environments need different zero trust controls than enterprise IT?
A: OT systems protect physical processes, so availability and predictable communication matter as much as access restriction.
Q: How do teams know if OT segmentation is still working?
A: OT segmentation is working only if access decisions remain accurate when systems move, scale, or connect to new platforms.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory OT machine identities and unmanaged endpoints Build a complete inventory of controllers, HMIs, service identities, and other non-person entities that initiate or receive OT traffic.
- Bind access to operational context Apply attribute-based rules that consider zone, device state, maintenance window, and command type before permitting machine-to-machine communication.
- Segment by control path and process criticality Separate control, data, and management flows so that a compromised maintenance path cannot reach safety-critical assets.
Bottom line: OT zero trust elevates machine identity from a supporting control to the mechanism that makes access decisions safe in operational environments.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 10 months ago by Abdelrahman
This topic was modified 6 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
06/10/2026 9:23 pm
OT zero trust is really machine identity governance under safety constraints. The DoW framework shows that OT cannot inherit enterprise IT assumptions about stable user sessions, casual re-authentication, or broad policy churn. In OT, identity has to be attached to machines, controllers, and workflows that keep physical processes alive. Practitioners should read this as a governance shift: the control problem is not just access, it is preserving operational determinism while constraining machine-to-machine trust.
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.
- By 2029, 40% of enterprises that successfully implement zero trust within cloud service provider environments will rely on the advanced visibility and control capabilities offered by CNAPP solutions.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own OT identity decisions when safety and security goals conflict?
A: Ownership has to be shared between security, operations, and system owners because the consequences are physical, not just digital. Security can define policy, but operations must validate what can be enforced safely, what needs approval, and what must be preserved during incident containment.
👉 Read our full editorial: Zero trust for operational technology shifts machine identity priorities