3 ms·
Zero Trust is such a bad branding for how the architecture works. It's just "always prove" architecture.
by wyldberry 3y ago
Zero Trust is such a bad branding for how the architecture works. It's just "always prove" architecture.
- tough 3y agoIt does seem to sound pretty well on the mind of the executives signing the deals that hear the marketing talk
- wepple 3y ago“Always prove” and “zero ambient trust” are basically the same thing, no? Perhaps “authenticate everything, everywhere” is better, but falls into the trap of trying to define “everywhere” and “everything”: should every single client application have to authenticate? Should you have to authenticate Ethernet frames?
- wyldberry 3y agoI think we may mean the same thing, but zero trust has a connotation of negative rights, versus always prove is a way of framing things in a more positive assertion. At least that's worked for me at the last couple of places i've been. Should every client application have to authenticate and authorize? Probably not every but the overwhelming majority probably and those that don't should have a good justification as to not. The challenge after that is "how long is this good for?".