Talk:Zero trust architecture

Missing Reference: Sun Microsystems engineer in a Network World article in May 1994

The following paragraph is not substantiated, and it is also unclear what contribution this statement makes to the article:

The problems of the Smartie or M&M model of the network was described by a Sun Microsystems engineer in a Network World article in May 1994, who described firewalls' perimeter defence, as a hard shell around a soft centre, like a Cadbury Egg.

A brief search did not reveal any sources for the article mentioned.

--Florian-breisch (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph repeated

"2018, work undertaken in the United States by cybersecurity researchers at NIST and NCCoE led to the publication of SP 800-207, Zero Trust Architecture.[5][6] The publication defines zero trust (ZT) as... "

is two times in the article. 78.0.102.202 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Zero Trust Controversies

Has there been controversies surrounding the Zero Trust Security Model? Such as, privacy concerns, administrative abuse, etc.

Darrowwolfe (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

ETSI Definition

Moved from User talk:Gpildush

Hello, @Gpildush! I'm here to inform you why I reverted your additions to Zero trust architecture. Thank you for helping, but WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. That's not to say that the ETSI definition is not useful or important, but rather that it needs a secondary source reporting on it before it can be added. This is a criteria of notability, one of the core pillars of Wikipedia. If you can find a reliable, secondary source discussing the ETSI definition, that would be preferable, and you can feel free to undo my reversion. Thanks, and happy editing! guninvalid (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Understood. And that's great to know. I have reverted your deletion and happy to add additional sources (you already have some of them in the previous reference list). Gpildush (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding additional response - I added one more ETSI reference. One thing to remember is that the specified/used ETSI technical specifications are international standards. Not only that - they do have their corresponding reference lists, which include NIST reference. I cannot refer to the NIST reference list, as it does not address all the pointers which I placed into Wiki. Please let me know if there are any questions. Thanks. Gpildush (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gpildush, I've again undone your addition. A couple problems here. Firstly, the additional source you added is also from ETSI, which means it is still a primary source. Please see guidelines on what constitutes a secondary source: namely that the source is independent of the original work. Additionally, please do not copy paste large segments of text from the source directly, as this can be a copyright violation. Finally, please do not capitalize Zero Trust throughout the rest of the article, as you have not gained consensus for such a change. If you would like to argue that it should be capitalized, you can open a discussion and see if any other editors agree. guninvalid (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I will not change capitalization of Zero Trust in the work that's already there. Re copyright violation with respect to ETSI - the work is put in "" and there is a reference to the source - ie - ETSI standard. So, with that, there is no copyright violation. With respect to secondary source - I will add NIST 800 207 document, which already is listed as one of the sources on this page. So, reverting the text with additions of what I just mentioned. Hope this is OK, Thanks Gpildush (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to briefly explain my reasoning: The reason I believe zero trust should stay uncapitalized is for the same reason that the article is titled Zero trust architecture without the capital T. Zero trust (uncapitalized) is the WP:COMMONNAME used in the majority of sources. But since ETSI themselves call it Zero Trust, it's fine to call it that when discussing the ETSI definition. But for the rest of the article, zero trust is preferable. guninvalid (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jay8g @Gpildush I've now gone ahead and completed my copyedit, at least for now. Of course, if you feel I got something wrong, or you would like to dispute some content, please feel free to fix it yourself or continue a discussion here on this talk page. Thanks, happy editing, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! guninvalid (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jay8g @Guninvalid Thank you for your copyedit. I see that you have changed the flow and introduced a section with Definitions. I am fine with that. The history section is missing this industry contribution now.. Hope it is Ok with me placing this text within the History section - "In September 2025, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Technical Committee CYBER (ETSI TC CYBER) published Technical Specification (TS) 104 102, which details the ZT-Kipling methodology to be used to achieve Zero Trust security posture." [citation]. One more point - I'll add citations to the text that you placed into under the Definitions header. I'll do all that now. If anything - please do let me know . Thanks for all your help. Gpildush (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)