Zero Trust & Secure Access

Choose by matching users, devices, applications, network access, identity sources, posture checks, segmentation, deployment model, integrations, and enforcement locations.

Separate workplace network access control from remote application access, then define identity and posture requirements for employees, contractors, guests, unmanaged devices and IoT. The policy model must be practical to operate and audit, with resilience for sites affected by WAN or cloud disruption. Use the platform comparison to assess access scope, policy model, identity, posture, enforcement, and estate fit.

The platforms differ in NAC architecture, cloud delivery, network integration, device profiling, segmentation, ZTNA, endpoint telemetry, and multivendor support.

HPE Aruba Networking ClearPass focuses on multivendor NAC and onboarding, Cisco Identity Services Engine on policy, profiling and segmentation, Juniper Mist Access Assurance on cloud-native NAC with site survivability, and Fortinet on linking NAC, telemetry and ZTNA. Use the vendor comparison to compare HPE, Cisco, Juniper, and Fortinet by NAC, ZTNA, identity, and network integration.

It can automate appropriate access and reduce lateral movement, but policy design, endpoint readiness, exception handling, and user communication determine operational success.

Identity and device context can place users and endpoints into the correct role without relying on static VLANs, improving segmentation and responsiveness. However, certificate deployment, guest onboarding, legacy exceptions and weak diagnostics can increase service desk demand unless policies are tested and enforced in stages.

It can replace some broad VPN and static access models, but legacy protocols, unmanaged devices, site access, and emergency workflows may require coexistence.

ZTNA suits application-specific remote access, while NAC still matters for devices connecting to wired and wireless networks and for controlled administrative access. Older applications and operational systems may still need VPN during transition, so dependencies and break-glass procedures should be defined before cutover.

Yes, mixed-vendor access can work when identity attributes, device posture, RADIUS or TACACS flows, policy ownership, enforcement, and logging are aligned.

Assessments should confirm protocol support, available policy attributes, posture update timing, and how policies behave across each hardware family. Logging also needs to preserve user, device, policy and enforcement context so faults can be traced across identity, access control, routing and security. For NAC, ZTNA, identity integration, or phased access-policy deployment, speak to our secure access experts before enforcing the design.

Specify identity sources, MFA, certificates, posture signals, device profiling, access protocols, policy scale, local survivability, audit logging, APIs, and high availability.

Document authentication methods such as 802.1X, MAB, RADIUS, TACACS+, SAML, OIDC and certificate-based access, then confirm how posture signals are collected and updated. Resilience should cover redundant policy nodes, local authentication, identity-provider outages and searchable audit logs with governance and API support.