VPN is not the same as Zero Trust and the distinction matters.
Traditional VPNs assume trust once a user successfully connects to the network. ZTNA (Zero Trust Network Access), by contrast, continuously verifies identity, device posture, and access context before granting application-level access. This architectural difference significantly changes an organizationās risk profile.
For mid-market organizations across the United States, the shift from VPN to ZTNA directly affects:
- Breach exposure and lateral movement risk
- Cyber insurance eligibility and underwriting scrutiny
- HIPAA and FTC Safeguards Rule compliance alignment
- Audit defensibility and access control documentation
- Internal IT workload and operational complexity
Attackers favor flat networks because they enable broad internal movement once access is gained. ZTNA removes that implicit trust model and restricts access by design.
The Problem: VPNs Were Built for a Different Era
For years, Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) were widely considered a security best practice and the default solution for enabling remote access. When organizations expanded their remote workforce, opened new locations, or needed to grant access to third-party vendors, the response was straightforward: deploy a VPN. That approach made sense in an era when networks were centralized and protected by a clearly defined perimeter.
The issue isnāt that VPNs are inherently flawed or malicious. The problem is that they were designed for a perimeter-based architecture that no longer reflects how modern organizations operate. Todayās environments are hybrid, cloud-driven, and identity-basedāyet VPNs still function as if trust can be granted once a user connects to the internal network. That assumption no longer aligns with todayās threat landscape.
Evaluate Your Access Risk Posture
What a VPN Actually Does
At a technical level, a VPN performs three primary functions: it authenticates a user, establishes an encrypted tunnel between the userās device and the organizationās environment, and then places that user inside the internal network. The encryption protects data in transit, which is valuable. However, once the connection is established, trust is largely assumed.
In many mid-market environments, that means the authenticated user gains broad internal visibility based on existing network segmentationāor, in some cases, the absence of meaningful segmentation. Common realities include:
- Flat internal network architecture
- Shared domain access across departments or locations
- Over-permissioned service and user accounts
- Little to no automated device posture validation
From a compliance and cyber insurance perspective, this creates a structural issue. Rather than limiting access to a specific application or workload, the VPN effectively extends the internal network outward to wherever the user is located. The organization is expanding its trust boundary, not reducing it.
Why Attackers Love Flat Networks
Flat networks reduce friction for attackers. When internal systems are minimally segmented, a single successful authentication event can provide broad visibility across servers, applications, and shared resources. Once an attacker is āinside,ā lateral movement becomes significantly easier.
In practical terms, that movement often includes:
- Using a compromised credential to access shared drives or financial systems
- Deploying malware that scans internal servers for vulnerable workloads
- Spreading ransomware across endpoints to maximize impact
- Escalating privileges within Active Directory to gain administrative control
A traditional VPN does not meaningfully restrict this behavior. Once authentication succeeds, access is typically granted at the network level, and trust is assumed. From a threat actorās perspective, a valid VPN credential functions as a high-value access tokenāone that opens the door not just to a single application, but potentially to the broader environment.
Why VPNs Are Quietly Getting You Flagged
Security due diligence has changed. Cyber insurance carriers, external auditors, and regulatory assessors are no longer satisfied with generic statements about āsecure remote access.ā Questionnaires now probe deeper into how access is controlled, segmented, and continuously validated.
Common questions include:
- Do you enforce least privilege access across remote users?
- Is access restricted to specific applications rather than the full network?
- Is device health validated before access is granted?
- Are users continuously re-authenticated based on context and risk?
- Is your remote access architecture aligned with Zero Trust principles?
- When the primary answer is simply, āWe use a VPN,ā that often leads to additional scrutiny. Not because VPNs are obsolete, but because they were not designed to enforce modern Zero Trust controls by default.
VPN architectures typically:
- Assume trust after initial authentication
- Provide limited or inconsistent device posture validation
- Do not inherently enforce micro-segmentation
- Permit broad lateral movement once connected
- Extend the organizationās attack surface beyond the internal perimeter
From an underwriting and compliance standpoint, this creates exposure that must be evaluated, mitigated, or priced into risk. Thatās why ZTNA is increasingly entering the conversation ā not as a trend, but as a structural response to how access risk is now assessed.
What Is ZTNA?
ZTNA, or Zero Trust Network Access, is a modern access control framework built on a simple principle: no user or device is trusted by defaultāeven after authentication. Instead of granting broad network access once credentials are verified, ZTNA continuously evaluates identity, device posture, and contextual risk before allowing access to specific resources.
At its core, ZTNA enforces:
- No implicit trust based on network location
- Continuous identity verification
- Device health validation prior to access
- Least-privilege, application-specific access controls
- Built-in prevention of lateral movement
The architectural shift is significant. ZTNA replaces traditional network-level access with application-level access. Rather than placing a user āinsideā the network, it establishes a secure, direct connection only to the specific application that user is authorized to use.
The user does not gain broader network visibility. Internal systems are not exposed for scanning. Trust is not assumed simply because authentication succeeded. Access is narrow, contextual, and continuously validatedāby design.
VPN vs ZTNA: A Practical Comparison
The difference between VPN and ZTNA is not cosmeticāit reflects two fundamentally different security philosophies. VPN extends network access outward. ZTNA restricts application access inward. That distinction materially changes risk exposure, compliance posture, and audit defensibility.
Below is a side-by-side comparison relevant to mid-market IT leaders:
Security Capability | Traditional VPN | ZTNA |
|---|---|---|
Access Model | Network-level access after authentication | Application-level access only |
Trust Model | Trust once connected | Continuous identity and context verification |
Device Posture Checks | Rare, inconsistent, or manual | Automated and enforced before access |
Lateral Movement Protection | Limited, depends on segmentation | Restricted by design |
Micro-Segmentation | Requires additional configuration | Native to architecture |
Cyber Insurance Alignment | Increasing underwriting scrutiny | Strong alignment with Zero Trust expectations |
Audit Defensibility | Moderate, requires documentation layering | High, with policy-based access controls |
For CIOs, Compliance Officers, and CFOs, this is not primarily a technology debate. It is a risk posture decision. The question is not whether VPN worksāit does. The question is whether extending network-level trust aligns with todayās insurance requirements, regulatory expectations, and threat landscape.
Download: VPN vs ZTNAāA Risk Comparison for Mid-Market IT
Advantages: Why ZTNA Is Replacing VPN in Mid-Market IT
ZTNA is gaining traction not because it is new, but because it directly addresses the structural weaknesses inherent in traditional VPN-based access models. As mid-market organizations face increased regulatory scrutiny, tighter cyber insurance underwriting, and more sophisticated threat actors, leadership teams are reassessing how remote access should function.
For CIOs and IT Directors, the shift toward ZTNA is ultimately about measurable risk reduction, improved compliance alignment, and long-term operational efficiency. The following advantages explain why many organizations are moving beyond VPN and adopting Zero Trust Network Access as a foundational part of their security architecture.
1. Reduced Breach Impact
One of the most significant advantages of ZTNA is containment. In a traditional VPN model, stolen credentials can provide broad internal access, especially in environments with limited segmentation. That access often allows attackers to move laterally, escalate privileges, and identify high-value targets such as file servers, financial systems, or domain controllers.
ZTNA limits that exposure by design. If credentials are compromised, access is restricted to the specific application the user is authorized to useānot the entire network. The attacker does not gain visibility into adjacent systems, and lateral movement opportunities are significantly reduced.
In practical terms, this architectural difference can determine whether an incident remains isolated and manageable or escalates into a multi-day outage with ransomware deployment, regulatory reporting requirements, and substantial financial impact. Containment is not just a technical feature; it is a direct lever on breach cost.
2. Stronger Compliance Position
Regulatory expectations across industries continue to rise. Healthcare organizations must meet HIPAA security requirements. Senior Living operators are facing heightened scrutiny around data protection and resident privacy. Automotive groups are aligning with the FTC Safeguards Rule. Financial institutions operate under GLBA and related oversight. In each case, access control is a central theme.
ZTNA directly supports core compliance principles by enforcing:
- Least privilege, application-specific access
- Policy-based access control documentation
- Device health validation prior to connection
- Segmentation that limits unauthorized internal visibility
For auditors and assessors, this architecture demonstrates intentional control over who can access whatāand under what conditions. Rather than relying on broad network trust and compensating controls, ZTNA shows that access restrictions are embedded into the design of the environment. That distinction strengthens defensibility and signals proactive risk management rather than reactive remediation.
3. Improved Cyber Insurance Eligibility
Cyber insurance underwriting has tightened significantly in recent years. Carriers are no longer issuing policies based on basic perimeter controls; they are evaluating architecture, segmentation, and identity governance. Common requirements now include:
- Enforced multi-factor authentication (MFA)
- Endpoint detection and response (EDR) deployment
- Documented network segmentation
- Alignment with Zero Trust principles
Organizations that rely solely on traditional VPN access frequently encounter increased scrutiny during renewal. In some cases, this results in premium increases, higher deductibles, restricted coverage, or additional security control mandates before coverage is extended.
ZTNA aligns more closely with current underwriting expectations because it demonstrates controlled, application-level access and reduced lateral movement risk. For CFOs and executive leadership, this shifts the conversation from āIs this a security upgrade?ā to āHow does this affect our insurance cost structure and long-term financial exposure?ā
4. Lower Operational Burden on IT
Beyond security and compliance, there is an operational reality that often goes unspoken: traditional VPN environments are labor-intensive to maintain. Over time, they accumulate complexity in the form of:
- Expanding firewall rule sets and exceptions
- Manual access provisioning and deprovisioning
- Ongoing troubleshooting of tunnel failures and connectivity issues
- Risk management around split tunneling configurations
Each change request, new hire, vendor onboarding, or location expansion adds incremental configuration overhead. In mid-market environments with lean IT teams, this compounds quickly.
ZTNA centralizes access policy around identity rather than network location or IP-based rules. Access decisions are enforced consistently through policy, reducing the need for one-off firewall adjustments and manual configuration changes. For overstretched IT departments, this translates into fewer reactive support tickets, less rule sprawl, and a more predictable access modelāultimately lowering burnout and operational complexity.
Prepare for Your Next Insurance Renewal
Real-World Scenario: Healthcare Group with 18 Locations
A mid-market healthcare organization operating across 18 locations in multiple U.S. states relied on a traditional VPN to support remote billing access, physician charting, and third-party vendor connectivity. The architecture provided encrypted access into the internal network, but segmentation controls were limited and device posture validation was inconsistent.
Following a phishing campaign, a staff memberās credentials were compromised. The attacker successfully authenticated through the VPN and gained internal network access. From there, the sequence was predictable:
- Internal file shares were scanned for sensitive data
- Administrative privileges were escalated
- Ransomware was deployed across endpoints
- Operations were disrupted for multiple days
The financial impact was significant:
- Incident response and forensic services: $180,000
- Downtime and lost productivity: $420,000
- Legal counsel, compliance remediation, and reporting: $150,000
- Subsequent cyber insurance premium increase: 35%
When modeled over a three-year period, including increased insurance costs and ongoing remediation investments, the estimated financial impact exceeded $1.2 million.
Following the incident, the organization transitioned to a ZTNA-based access model. Application-level access was enforced, third-party vendors were segmented, and device posture validation became mandatory prior to connection. The VPN infrastructure was retired in favor of identity-driven policies.
The result was a materially reduced risk surface. Access was no longer synonymous with internal network visibility, and compromise containment improved by design.
Cost Comparison: VPN vs ZTNA
A common assumption is that ZTNA is significantly more expensive than a traditional VPN. On paper, licensing for a modern Zero Trust platform can appear higher. However, a realistic cost comparison must include operational overhead, infrastructure requirements, and breach exposure.
Typical Mid-Market VPN Environment
A standard VPN deployment in a mid-market organization often includes:
- Firewall upgrades and capacity planning
- VPN concentrators or hardware refresh cycles
- Ongoing rule configuration and access management
- Time spent troubleshooting connectivity and access issues
When management time, infrastructure depreciation, and support overhead are included, estimated annual costs typically fall between $45,000 and $75,000, depending on scale and complexity.
What is often excluded from this calculation is exposure risk. Because VPN extends network-level access, breach impact can be high if credentials are compromised or segmentation is weak.
ZTNA Model
A ZTNA architecture shifts costs toward identity-driven access controls and centralized policy enforcement. This typically includes:
- Subscription-based identity and access platform licensing
- Integrated device posture validation
- Reduced reliance on perimeter hardware
- Policy-based access management rather than IP-based rules
Estimated annual investment often ranges from $60,000 to $90,000, depending on user count and integration scope.
However, breach exposure is materially reduced due to application-level access controls and restricted lateral movement. When factoring the financial impact of even one contained incidentāparticularly in regulated industriesāthe return on investment becomes clearer.
For CFOs and executive leadership, this is not simply a line-item comparison. It is a risk-adjusted cost decision: evaluating not only annual operating expense, but the probability and magnitude of a security event over time.
Common Objection: āOur VPN Has MFA ā Isnāt That Enough?ā
Multi-factor authentication (MFA) is an important control. It significantly reduces the likelihood of credential-based compromise by requiring an additional verification factor beyond a password. However, MFA strengthens authenticationāit does not redesign access architecture.
MFA alone does not:
- Restrict lateral movement once access is granted
- Enforce consistent device health validation
- Segment users to specific applications by default
- Eliminate exposure created by flat internal networks
When MFA is layered onto a traditional VPN, the result is still network-level access after authentication succeeds. The user ā or attacker using valid credentials ā is placed inside the environment. The underlying trust model remains largely intact.
ZTNA changes the access model itself. Instead of granting entry to the network and relying on downstream controls, it limits access at the application level from the start, continuously verifying identity and context. The distinction is architectural, not incremental.
FAQ: What Is ZTNA?
What does ZTNA stand for?
ZTNA stands for Zero Trust Network Access, a security model that verifies every user and device before granting application-specific access.
How is ZTNA different from VPN?
A VPN provides network-level access after authentication.
ZTNA provides application-level access with continuous identity and device validation.
Is ZTNA required for compliance?
While not always mandated explicitly, ZTNA supports least privilege, segmentation, and access controls required under HIPAA, FTC Safeguards Rule, and other U.S. regulations.
Does ZTNA replace VPN entirely?
In most modern architectures, yes. ZTNA is designed to replace traditional VPN for remote and third-party access.
Modernize Remote Access Without Overloading IT
Action: Is Your Remote Access Model Increasing Risk?
Remote access architecture is no longer a background IT decision. It directly affects breach exposure, compliance posture, and insurance eligibility. If your organization relies primarily on VPN for remote connectivity, the question is not whether it works ā itās whether it aligns with current risk expectations.
It may be time to reassess your model if your organization:
- Uses VPN as its primary remote access method
- Operates across multiple offices or geographic locations
- Stores or processes regulated data (HIPAA, GLBA, FTC Safeguards)
- Is preparing for a cyber insurance renewal
- Has experienced a credential-based security incident
In todayās threat environment, extending network-level access creates measurable exposure. Evaluating whether your current approach aligns with Zero Trust principles is not about chasing trendsāitās about ensuring your access model reflects how risk is actually assessed in 2026.
