![Cybersecurity hands on keyboard](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/399/2021/12/wAdobeStock_438181665-767x633.jpg)
Zero Trust Security: Moving From 'Trust but Verify' to 'Never Trust, Always Verify'
We have arrived at the age of 'Never Trust, Always Verify.' Zero Trust is truly a paradigm shift: no user is deemed trustworthy, continuous verification is required, and access inside the perimeter does not guarantee unfettered movement. Zero Trust is premised upon the five pillars examined in this article.
December 03, 2021 at 10:00 AM
8 minute read
Once upon a time, before the age of computers, when a business needed to secure and protect information and assets, discussions centered on limiting physical access to offices, paper files, and tangible documents. Locked file cabinets, restricted areas, and limited personnel access were the order of the day.
As computers gained a foothold in the business world and the internet became mainstream, new challenges arose. How was a business to protect non-tangible information that existed in this new, unseen, uncharted universe called the internet? Emphasis was placed on protecting internal business information, systems, and assets from outside attackers. Firewalls, antivirus, and passwords were deployed to prevent malicious actors from breaching the business perimeter and gaining internal access. This traditional network security followed the "Trust but Verify" method, in which internal users and endpoints within the business' perimeter were automatically trusted once their log-in credentials were validated. Unfortunately, as both technology and hackers advanced, the "trust but verify" approach has proven inadequate to protect against internal bad actors or external hackers.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![As AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle As AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/a4/4e/0894ec37414cb702035d5562cb67/deepfake-767x633-2.jpg)
As AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle
![Unchartered Waters: The AI Phishing Wave Is Here Unchartered Waters: The AI Phishing Wave Is Here](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/5b/57/1c840b4d430da4eb258237ffe63a/artificial-intelligence-04-767x633.jpg)
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1CFPB Labor Union Files Twin Lawsuits Seeking to Prevent Agency's Closure
- 2Crypto Crime Down, Hacks Up: Lawyers Warned of 2025 Security Shake-Up
- 3Atlanta Calling: National Law Firms Flock to a ‘Hotbed for Talented Lawyers’
- 4Privacy Suit Targets Education Department Over Disclosure of Student Financial Data to DOGE
- 5Colwell Law Group Founder Has Died in Skiing Accident
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250