CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model

Post by slaymaker1907 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 9:39 PM UTC

elevation wrote: post #19

Regarding authentication, the "optimal" practice is described as: > Agency continuously validates identity, not just when access is initially granted. How does this work practically without having terrible UX? MFA to login, then periodically poll for the presence of a hardware token and less frequently, prompt for password reauthentication?

There are programmatic implications for this as well. For example, don't use/trust really long lived tickets with Kerberos and force renegotiation with the AS. This doesn't require much human interaction if you are using keytabs. However, IMO it is much more important to continuously be checking authorization to ensure no funny business is going on rather than relying upon implied permissions.

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 4:39 AM UTC

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #20

offmycloud wrote: post #18

Zero Trust is such a terrible name. What they really mean is less trust in network location, static firewalls, and site-to-site VPNs, and much more trust in the cryptography behind TLS, identity systems, and how they interact with applications.

I think defense in depth is also a major related principle. Make each layer as beefy as possible in terms of security even if seemingly redundant since these help when other layers are bypassed through some exploit. However, in my opinion one major failing of this paradigm is that while some additional layers are useful, it's still good to think about threat models and failure modes since at some point, you can't imp…

[deleted]

Re: CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model

Re: CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model