We’ve all probably heard the term ZTNA at some point in recent months with all the buzz it’s been getting. It seems that everyone has a different definition of it. What does it mean? And why is it so consistently compared to VPNs? There are a lot of questions to ask. We’ll be exploring the answers to all of them as we discuss the pros and cons of VPNs, and what exactly Zero Trust means as it relates to remote access.
What is a VPN?
VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) are a form of remote access in which traffic is sent over an encrypted channel from one location to another. While most people are familiar with consumer-grade VPNs, there are several types and flavors:
What is ZTNA?
ZTNA, or Zero Trust Network Access, is a philosophy of network security in which the identity of a user is never assumed to be legitimate. This is expressed by the phrase and principle of “never trust, always verify.” While the implementation of ZTNA principles is constantly evolving and can mean several different things to different organizations, the basic principles can be condensed to those outlined by Forrester:
VPNs do allow for comprehensive monitoring in the sense that if I’m connected to a VPN, all of that traffic is visible from the firewall/VPN server. I can see who is signing in and also what they’re accessing when that traffic hits the headquarters.
The problem with this being that VPN credentials are constantly being sold on the dark web. Even as I’m writing this, someone’s VPN credentials are being stolen and allowing even the most amateur of hackers to break into a company’s internal network. In this sense, all entities on a network are being considered trusted.
On that note, what happens when a user, legitimate or otherwise, gets into the network? What will they be able to see? Well, I can tell you that especially with quick and easy VPN configurations, the entire network is visible by those connected to the VPN. Once the user is assigned an internal IP, every other IP on that network will be reaching out, saying “hey,” asking to talk. In zero-trust terms, least privilege is not being enforced. Any user can move laterally anywhere within the network.
If VPNs can handle that comprehensive monitoring, ZTNA can be shaved down with Occam’s Razor to a hardening of authentication and authorization.
Authentication can be described as the verification of identity. VPNs will either take some kind of username and password or certificate key; both of which can be easily stolen. Key management techniques have their merits, but Torvalds forbid someone breaks in, it’s over. The entire network is compromised. The concept of authentication is hardened by the zero-trust principle of untrusted entities, which puts periodic checks in front of user verification, such as which device they’re using, where their sign-in location is, and even behavioral analysis.
Authorization, by contrast, relates to the kind of access a user has once they make it into the network. If a user or hacker makes their way behind the castle walls, which rooms do they have keys to? What can they edit? What can they compromise? This doesn’t just consider hackers, but insider threats as well. Disgruntled or poorly trained employees can do just as much damage as an outside attacker. The zero-trust principle of least privilege concerns itself with this level of granular access. If the hacker, employee, employee’s neighbor who saw an open laptop, etc. can’t see it, they can’t leak it or delete it.
With all that we’ve gone over, it seems that the path ahead is clear. As mentioned before, we would never knock dial-up for what it was when it came out! It revolutionized internet connectivity on the global scale. We can praise it without feeling the responsibility to keep using legacy technology. ZTNA is the next evolution of remote accessing, building on what its predecessors brought to the industry... It deserves respect, not storage on my device.