Strong authentication practices are paramount to any zero-trust architecture. A company’s insider threat and breach risks are much higher without them. On the other hand, deploying best practices can substantially improve their overall protection from internal and external threats.
Zero trust suggests organizations should trust no individual or device by default — even if the person has previously enjoyed access privileges or already operates within the network. To properly deploy this security concept, companies must leverage strong authentication practices.
Authentication is crucial for establishing expectations and monitoring privileges — no zero-trust strategy can exist without it. Regardless of context or authority, everyone must verify their identity to prove the company can have confidence in them.
Authentication practices validate users’s identities to determine whether or not to grant the use of company assets. Without them, anyone could pose as someone else to escalate their privileges — rendering the entire concept ineffective. If there’s no way to monitor and control who accesses systems and data sets, there is little point to a zero-trust architecture.
Moreover, strong authentication practices protect companies from insider threats and data breach damages by minimizing access and accelerating threat identification. In addition to limiting lateral movement, they also help the information technology department trace attackers.
Perimeter security isn’t foolproof, so more organizations use zero-trust authentication to protect their most valuable assets. As of 2022,
Although zero trust authentication has no industry-standard applications, widely accepted fundamentals exist.
Unlike other security measures, authentication requires persistent reapplication. Zero trust revolves around granting access
If a user were to successfully verify their identity once and later fall victim to malware, social engineering, or device hijacking, their pre-approved access privileges would put sensitive data and systems at risk. For continued organizational security, re-authentication is crucial.
With the rise of artificial intelligence, automated attacks have increased. Companies should leverage rate limiters to prevent cybercriminals from using brute force or credential-stuffing attacks. This way, excess authentication attempts will be flagged for manual review.
Alternative anti-automation practices involve specific tools. For example,
Even when users successfully verify their identity, they should only get bare-minimum privileges. This practice mitigates human error and insider threats by ensuring individuals can’t unintentionally or maliciously alter or share data.
If certain data sets or systems aren’t critical for a user’s current task, there’s no reason they need to be able to view or manipulate them. Limiting the scope of their access to the bare essentials prevents them from engaging in risky behavior and minimizes lateral movement in the event an attacker breaches network defenses.
An authentication bypass vulnerability occurs when someone finds a workaround to identity verification by exploiting development or deployment gaps. Although many security tools are supposedly foolproof, mistakes happen. If employees were to routinely manipulate the system, they’d make the zero trust architecture arbitrary.
Companies should ensure bypassing authentication measures is impossible. Considering workers are consistently
When establishing best practices, many companies overlook device authentication. Even though company computers are already within the network, they are still vulnerable to external interference and insider threats. Consequently, companies shouldn’t allow any technology to access their assets without prior security validation.
This authentication approach is particularly applicable to remote workers since many use personal computers or phones. Requiring them to verify their technology protects their employer’s systems and data.
A proper zero-trust architecture leverages multiple security tool tiers. However, it’s not uncommon for industry professionals to parrot unbelievable success rate statistics, prompting companies to put too much trust in a single solution.
For example, a 2018 report from Microsoft prompted dozens of claims that multi-factor authentication prevents 99% of cyber attacks. Even respected authorities like the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency assert it
People often refer to authentication methods as something a person knows, has, and is — like passwords, one-time passcodes, and biometrics. Companies should take this saying to heart, leveraging each type to ensure maximum protection.
Although strong passwords are a cornerstone of any security strategy, they’re ultimately unreliable. Companies should adopt passwordless authentication practices instead of shifting responsibility onto staff prone to human error.
Forcing users to sign in with one-time passcodes and randomly generated codes is much safer than trusting them to create secure login details. In fact, multi-factor authentication alone
Unauthorized access instances are among the leading causes of breaches and cyber-attacks. In fact, it
Although no strategy is foolproof, companies can get close to a 100% success rate if they use risk analysis to inform their authentication decisions. Since zero trust revolves around protecting assets instead of reinforcing perimeter security, a well-informed approach can enhance protection.
Deploying a zero-trust architecture without strong authentication practices is like serving a pie without filling — it’s pointless. Identity management and governance are fundamental to the success of this security strategy. If companies want to mitigate risks and improve their level of protection, they should seriously consider implementing the best practices.