Zero Trust vs Traditional Security Models: What’s the Difference?

As cyber attacks grow in sophistication, traditional security models become more vulnerable, prompting many organizations to adopt zero-trust security. The main difference between traditional and zero-trust security models is how they approach access control. Traditional security models assume trust for users inside their networks, whereas zero-trust security verifies every user and device by default, requiring continuous authentication.

Continue reading to learn more about the differences between zero-trust and traditional security models, how traditional security models fall short and the ways a Privileged Access Management (PAM) solution helps organizations implement zero-trust security.

What is a traditional security model?

A traditional security model follows a perimeter-based approach, often called the “castle and moat.” Once an authorized user is inside the company network – acting as the castle – they are trusted and can move around freely. This model focuses on defending the perimeter with firewalls and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) – acting as the moat – to keep unauthorized users out of the network. Traditional security models worked well when most or all employees and equipment were on-premises. However, in recent years, organizations have scaled their networks and adopted new security models, such as zero-trust security, to support widespread distributed and remote work.

What is a zero-trust security model?

A zero-trust security model eliminates implicit trust, requiring continuous identity verification for all users and devices before granting access to data and systems. Unlike traditional security models, which assume trust for users inside the network, zero trust enforces strict authentication for every access attempt. This approach mitigates the risks associated with assumed trust by verifying every user and device each time an access request is made.

Key differences between zero trust and traditional security models

Zero-trust and traditional security models differ in their trust assumptions, access controls, network boundaries, monitoring, policies and threat prevention.

Trust assumptions

A traditional security model assumes that once a user or device is inside the network, they can be trusted no matter what. In contrast, a zero-trust security method assumes that no user or device should be trusted by default, regardless of whether they are inside or outside a network. While traditional security methods rely on implicit trust, zero-trust security operates on explicit trust because it continuously verifies the identities of users and devices before granting access.

Access control

Traditional security models grant access based on a user’s location, such as being inside an organization’s network, often providing broad access once inside. Zero-trust security, however, grants access based on strict verification of a user’s or device’s identity and behavior. Users receive only the minimum access needed for their role with zero-trust security, which limits damage to an organization in the event of an insider threat, cyber attack or data breach.

Network boundaries

Traditional security models rely on perimeter defenses like firewalls and VPNs to protect internal networks from external threats. In contrast, zero-trust security does not rely on a fixed perimeter. It treats all identities – both internal and external – the same, requiring constant verification. This ensures cloud applications and remote work environments are just as secure as on-prem systems.

Monitoring and logs

Traditional models often have limited monitoring and logging capabilities, increasing the risk of overlooking suspicious activity. Additionally, inadequate records can make it challenging to pinpoint the cause of incidents when they occur. Zero trust meticulously records all access and operations, enabling real-time monitoring. This allows organizations to detect anomalies immediately and respond appropriately without delays.

Security policies

Traditional security policies are typically static, remaining unchanged after their initial setup. This can make it difficult to address emerging threats or adapt to evolving environments. In contrast, zero-trust security applies dynamic policies that adjust based on user behavior and context. For example, Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) can modify permissions or require additional authentication when unusual activity is detected. Additionally, RBAC ensures that employees working on a specific project receive access only to relevant resources, with permissions automatically revoked once the project ends. 

Threat prevention

Traditional security models focus on protecting against external attacks. However, if cybercriminals gain access to the internal network, they can move laterally, compromising systems and data and increasing potential damage.

Zero-trust security mitigates this risk by enforcing strict network segmentation and limiting access for each user and device. Continuous authentication for all communications and actions ensures that even if a breach occurs, its impact is contained. Additionally, advanced capabilities like threat intelligence and machine learning enhance zero-trust security by detecting and responding to emerging threats more effectively.

Why traditional security models fall short

When compared to zero-trust security models, traditional security models have several vulnerabilities, such as granting excessive access privileges to users, weaker defenses with the increased use of cloud services, responding insufficiently to internal threats and lacking segmentation.

Excessive granting of access privileges

Traditional security models tend to provide users and devices with more access than they actually need. With this model, once a user is inside an organization’s network, they can access sensitive data whether or not it is necessary for their job. This exposes an organization to many security risks, including data breaches, if an account is compromised. Since zero-trust security models follow the Principle of Least Privilege (PoLP), users can access only what is necessary, reducing the damage from potential internal and external threats.

Limitations of perimeter defenses with increasing cloud services

Traditional security models protect an organization’s network perimeter with firewalls and VPNs, following the “castle and moat” structure. However, with the increased use of cloud services, employees can work from various locations, meaning data can be stored outside an organization’s physical network. This makes perimeter-based security, as used in traditional models, less effective. In contrast, zero-trust security models secure data and resources regardless of location because they continuously verify each access request.

Insufficient response to internal threats

Because traditional security models assume users within a network are automatically trustworthy, they typically fail to detect insider threats. For example, if an employee misuses data or a cybercriminal uses an employee’s stolen credentials to gain access, a traditional security model may not identify malicious activity because all users within the network are inherently trusted. This can lead to serious damage within an organization, including data breaches.

Lack of segmentation

With traditional security models, an internal network is viewed as one trusted space, so if a cybercriminal gains access to it, they can move laterally within the entire system. The lack of segmentation in traditional security models increases the risk of a cybercriminal moving freely through an organization’s network, potentially causing broader damage. Unlike traditional security models, zero-trust security models divide an organization’s network into smaller segments to restrict access to certain areas of the network.

How PAM helps organizations implement zero-trust security

Organizations can transition from traditional security models to zero-trust security models with the help of a strong PAM solution. Here are the ways a PAM solution can support organizations in implementing zero-trust security models.

Reinforcing the Principle of Least Privilege (PoLP)

Since the security model follows PoLP, PAM ensures users have access only to resources necessary for their jobs. This limitation reduces the risk of unauthorized access and minimizes potential damage if an employee’s account is compromised. Instead of giving an employee full access to sensitive data not required for their role, PAM supports RBAC and grants employees only what they need to perform their specific job duties.

Optimizing permissions when needed

With a PAM solution like Keeper Security’s KeeperPAM^®, organizations can give Just-in-Time (JIT) access to users, allowing them to receive temporary access to sensitive data when necessary. JIT access not only reduces standing privileges but also minimizes an organization’s attack surface by ensuring credentials are valid only for the duration of a certain task, aligning with zero-trust security principles. PAM eliminates standing access within organizations and grants privileges only when needed for specific tasks within a set timeframe, after which those privileges are revoked. Automated password rotation can also be scheduled to run after access is revoked to ensure resources are secure.

Monitoring and managing privileged accounts and sessions

PAM continuously monitors and tracks privileged account activity, helping organizations identify suspicious behavior and respond to potential security threats with real-time monitoring. In addition to real-time notifications, Keeper’s Advanced Reporting and Alerts Module (ARAM) enables administrators and compliance teams to monitor security incidents and detect unusual device behavior. For example, if an administrator tries to access sensitive financial data outside business hours, a PAM solution will notify the organization’s security team so they can act immediately.

MFA integration

A PAM solution like KeeperPAM strengthens authentication by integrating Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA), adding an extra layer of security by verifying users’ identities before they can access sensitive information. MFA ensures that even if a user’s credentials are stolen, cybercriminals cannot access sensitive information without an additional form of verification, aligning with zero-trust security principles.

Segmentation and resource isolation

PAM enforces strict access controls by segmenting resources so users can interact only with the specific systems they are authorized to access. This minimizes the chances of cybercriminals moving laterally within a network if they gain unauthorized access. Since network segmentation is foundational to zero-trust security, PAM provides critical tools for organizations to strengthen their overall security.

Seamlessly implement zero trust with KeeperPAM^®

Organizations can implement zero-trust security models seamlessly with KeeperPAM. By reinforcing least-privilege access, optimizing permissions, monitoring and managing privileged accounts, integrating MFA and segmenting networks, KeeperPAM supports all areas of an organization’s cybersecurity.

Request a demo of KeeperPAM today to enhance your organization’s access management and implement a zero-trust security model.