As modern enterprises operate in an environment where identity-based attacks, supply‑chain exposures, and lateral movement techniques dominate the threat landscape, the security perimeter has effectively dissolved. Traditional trust models can no longer withstand adversaries who exploit implicit permissions and outdated access controls. Zero Trust has therefore emerged not merely as an architectural preference but as a strategic imperative—one that demands continuous verification, contextual authentication, and rigorously enforced least‑privilege principles. At the heart of this transformation lies access management: the foundational control that determines who can access what, under which conditions, and for how long. Without strong identity governance and adaptive access policies, no Zero Trust journey can succeed.
As cyber threats evolve, traditional security models that rely on perimeter-based defenses are no longer sufficient. Increasingly sophisticated attackers, the growing dependency on third party supply chains, and the complexity of critical systems, invalidate the classic “inside-versus-outside” approach to cyber-defense. As a result, organizations should adopt a more dynamic and robust security framework that ensures continuous authentication of users, devices, and applications. Zero Trust strategy provides this framework.
Zero Trust strategy operates on the principle of “never trust, always verify” – superseding the idea of implicitly trusting an asset– or person– because of that person/asset being known. Access management stands at the heart of a successful Zero Trust implementation by ensuring that only verified and authorized identities gain access to critical resources. Through enforcement of strong access controls and the elimination of implicit trust, Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) mitigates many risks associated with unauthorized access, lateral movement, and credential-based attacks.
This article outlines an implementation plan for Zero Trust, emphasizing the importance of access management, and draws guidance from the CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model (ZTMM) Controls Guide.
“Access Management as the Core Pillar of Zero Trust: Building Security Through Continuous Verification, Least Privilege, and Identity-Centric Controls.”
Adam Palmer
The Role of Access Management in Zero Trust Implementation: Identity and Authentication as a First Line of Defense
A fundamental component of Zero Trust is ensuring that access is granted based on context (why a user wants access), verifiable user identity, device security posture, and behavioral analytics.
The CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model (ZTMM) provides a structured framework for organizations to assess and enhance their Zero Trust capabilities across key security pillars. It is comprised of four maturity levels, starting at “traditional” (Level 1), at which organizations rely on basic security measures. In the top level, “optimal” (Level 4), continuous authentication, dynamic policy enforcement, and automated risk assessment are fully integrated.
The first and most crucial step in Zero Trust implementation is to ensure that all users—whether employees, contractors, third-party vendors, or privileged administrators—undergo rigorous identity verification before accessing any assets/data. Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) is a foundational component, ensuring that authentication is phishing-resistant and context-aware.
As enterprises mature their Zero Trust maturity, passwordless authentication mechanisms such as FIDO2 and PIV (Personal Identity Verification) should replace traditional static password-based authentication, which remains a primary target for attackers. Secure identity stores must be federated and integrated across cloud and on-premises environments to facilitate seamless identity governance and reduce attack surfaces.
“In a world where perimeter defenses no longer hold, least privilege and adaptive authentication are no longer options— they are the operational backbone of modern cyber resilience.”
John Morgan Salomon
Least Privilege Access and Just-In-Time (JIT) Access Control
Zero Trust enforces the principle of least privilege (PoLP), ensuring that users and systems only have the minimum necessary access required for their functions. Static access controls that grant long-term permissions increase the risk of privilege escalation and insider threats. Even organizations with strict access control discipline and consistently applied exit procedures, can occasionally fail to remove users’ access rights when necessary.
Organizations should move towards just-in-time (JIT) and just-enough access (JEA) methodologies, where access is granted dynamically based on real-time risk assessments. Privileged Access Management (PAM) solutions play a vital role in ensuring that administrative access is time-bound, continuously monitored, and automatically revoked once the session ends.
This raises the potential issue of user friction – any increase in ZTA-related access management must avoid throwing burdensome obstacles in the path of legitimate users.
“Zero Trust is not a product or a checkbox—it is a strategic shift that places identity at the center of security. When organizations treat access as a dynamic, continuously evaluated privilege rather than a static entitlement, they dismantle the very pathways attackers rely on. Effective access management transforms the enterprise from a perimeter‑based structure into an adaptive, intelligence‑driven ecosystem where authentication, authorization, and risk assessment work in unison to protect every asset, every user, and every connection.”
Bharat Raigangar, Board Advisor, 1CxO, vCISO CyberSecurist & Mentor
Continuous Monitoring and Adaptive Trust Policies
Static access controls that grant long-term permissions are difficult to manage, and subject to compromise. They increase the risk of privilege escalation and insider threats.
A robust Zero Trust implementation requires continuous identity verification and risk-based adaptive authentication. Modern Identity Threat Detection and Response (ITDR) solutions analyze behavioral patterns, user activity, and anomaly detection signals to dynamically adjust access permissions based on risk levels. As an example, if a user attempts to access sensitive financial data from an unrecognized device or geographic location, the system should prompt additional authentication or deny access based on policy-based access standards. Identity analytics and AI-driven security automation enhance organizations’ ability to respond to evolving threats without compromising user experience.
The Importance of a focus on Access Management in Zero Trust Implementation
As organizations advance in their Zero Trust maturity, passwordless authentication mechanisms such as FIDO2 and PIV (Personal Identity Verification) should replace traditional password-based authentication, which remains a primary target for attackers. Secure identity storage must be federated and integrated across cloud and on-premises environments to facilitate seamless identity governance and reduce attack surfaces. Reduced complexity and diversity in an organization’s authentication infrastructure makes it less likely that an attacker will find gaps such as misconfigurations, bugs, and incompatibilities, to exploit. Regardless of the technologies, supporting architecture, or products that are used, Zero Trust enforces the underlying principle of least privilege, ensuring that users and systems only have the minimum necessary access required for their functions.
Implementation Success Roadmap
Zero Trust implementation success hinges on process integration, user education, and executive alignment.
Transitioning to a mature Zero Trust framework requires a strategic, phased approach that is aligned with an organization’s risk tolerance and operational needs. Furthermore, an up-to-date and consistently managed asset inventory that clearly assigns values to critical components is a prerequisite for effective Zero Trust adoption – such a resource makes it possible to identify information and IT components for which Zero Trust is a priority.
Below are recommended focus areas that should be emphasized for a successful ZTA implementation:
Establish a Zero Trust Vision and Governance Model. Successful Zero Trust implementations start with executive buy-in, clear objectives, and security governance frameworks. Organizations should ensure their corporate security and risk policies unambiguously support Zero Trust’s principles and objectives, and that these are formally acknowledged by leadership and management. They should then define Zero Trust policy enforcement models, maturity roadmaps, and compliance baselines based on frameworks such as CISA ZTMM, NIST 800-207, and ISO 27001.
Clearly Define Operational Considerations and Constraints. Security controls cannot work if they create excessive friction and are not accepted by the business. Security organizations should work with business information and infrastructure components and workflow owners to ensure that Zero Trust planning and implementation takes daily operational realities and established change management processes into account.
Enhance Identity Security and Access Management
Organizations must prioritize identity-centric security. They should implement MFA, passwordless authentication, and risk-based adaptive authentication in order to mitigate credential-based attacks.
Enforce Least Privilege and Zero Standing Privileges (ZSP)
Moving away from static privileged accounts, organizations should adopt JIT and JEA access models to minimize attack surfaces. Privileged session monitoring and automated access revocation should be core security controls.
Segment Networks and Secure Workloads
Implementing micro-segmentation and software-defined perimeters (SDP) ensures that lateral movement within the network is restricted. Traffic encryption, endpoint isolation, and software-defined networking (SDN) enhance Zero Trust network security.
Integrate Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring
Zero Trust requires real-time security analytics, AI-driven threat detection, and automated remediation to prevent unauthorized access. Organizations should leverage SIEM, SOAR, and ITDR solutions to maintain continuous authentication and anomaly detection.
Continuous Monitoring and Adaptive Trust Policies
A robust Zero Trust implementation requires continuous identity verification and risk-based adaptive authentication. Modern Identity Threat Detection and Response (ITDR) solutions analyze behavioral patterns, user activity, and anomaly detection signals to dynamically adjust access permissions based on risk levels. For example, if an employee attempts to access sensitive financial data from an unrecognized device or geographic location, the system should prompt additional authentication or deny access based on policy-based risk thresholds. Identity analytics and AI-driven security automation enhance organizations’ ability to respond to evolving threats without compromising user experience.
Final Recommendations
The shift towards a Zero Trust security model is increasingly no longer optional in today’s evolving cyber threat landscape. As attackers exploit identity vulnerabilities, weak access controls, and lateral movement tactics, organizations should implement rigorous access management, continuous authentication, and real-time risk assessments to strengthen their defenses.
By embracing Zero Trust and enterprises can enhance resilience, prevent data breaches, and maintain strong governance over identities, devices, and workloads. Security leaders must drive a culture of least privilege, adaptive authentication, and AI-driven threat response to stay ahead of emerging cyber threats.
As the cybersecurity landscape continues to evolve, organizations that proactively implement Zero Trust principles, integrate advanced threat analytics, and automate security workflows will be best positioned to safeguard their assets and maintain operational integrity in an increasingly hostile cyber environment.
About the Author
John Salomon is an information security executive and subject-matter expert with over 25 years of in-depth cross-cultural, international experience across multiple critical industry sectors. He currently advises and invests in cybersecurity startups, and is a board member of the nonprofit Cybersecurity Advisors Network (CyAN). John lives in Catalonia, Spain.
