Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
For most distributed businesses, make Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) the target architecture, but do not treat it as an overnight VPN replacement. ZTNA grants an authenticated user or workload the minimum access to a specific application or resource, using identity, device and context signals. A traditional VPN usually places the user on a network through a gateway, after which the reachable network and segmentation rules determine what the session can touch.
Keep a tightly scoped, well-maintained VPN for legacy protocols, unmanaged infrastructure and site-to-site connectivity that an application-aware access broker cannot yet represent. Move in measured waves: inventory first, pilot ZTNA with low-risk applications, retain only the VPN paths that remain necessary, and review security, reliability, support effort and total cost before each migration.
What ZTNA and a business VPN actually provide
ZTNA is an access-control architecture
Zero Trust Network Access is an implementation of the broader zero-trust model. Microsoft Learn defines zero trust as a model that “assumes no implicit trust and continuously verifies every access request.” In practice, a ZTNA service evaluates the identity making a request, the device and its security state, the requested application or resource, and relevant context such as location, session risk or policy. It then issues the smallest access grant needed for that task.
The user normally connects to an application through a broker or connector rather than receiving a general route into the corporate network. Authorization is checked at the application or resource boundary, and policy can be reevaluated as the session changes. A user who needs a ticketing system does not automatically receive a route to file servers, database subnets or other internal hosts.
#1 Best Overall
ZTNA is not one product or a single protocol. It is a set of identity, device, policy, application-segmentation and monitoring controls delivered by one or more services. Product names and capabilities vary, so assess the controls and integration points rather than assuming that a product labeled “zero trust” provides every zero-trust property.
A VPN creates network connectivity through a gateway
A conventional remote-access VPN authenticates a client to a gateway and establishes an encrypted tunnel. Depending on its configuration, the tunnel can provide a route to one application, a subnet, several network segments or nearly the entire internal network. The user experience is familiar because applications continue to see a network path much like an on-site connection.
That convenience also changes the security question. Once a device is on a reachable network, the exposure depends on gateway policy, route design, firewall rules, segmentation, endpoint security, protocol behavior, patching and account privileges. A compromised account or endpoint may be able to probe systems that were never intended to be part of the user’s task.
Recommended Free Tools
A VPN is a connectivity technology, not a promise of trust. Strong encryption and multifactor authentication (MFA) improve a VPN, but neither one by itself changes broad network reach into application-level least privilege.
ZTNA vs. VPN: the differences that affect a business
The right choice depends on what your employees, partners, applications and sites need to connect to. This comparison focuses on the control you receive, not on a particular vendor.
| Decision axis | ZTNA | Traditional VPN |
|---|---|---|
| Unit of access | Usually a named application, service or resource. | A network route, subnet or site reached through a gateway. |
| Trust decision | Per-request or continuously reevaluated using identity, device and context policies. | Often decided when the tunnel is established; later access is governed by routes and network controls. |
| Identity and device signals | Designed to combine user identity, device posture and context in authorization. | Can use MFA and device checks, but coverage depends on the VPN platform and configuration. |
| Lateral-movement containment | Application-level brokering can keep an authorized session away from unrelated internal resources. | Requires careful routing, segmentation and firewall policy; excessive reach can expose adjacent systems. |
| Legacy protocol support | Strongest where an application connector can represent the protocol and application; some network-dependent protocols do not fit. | Broad network connectivity generally supports legacy protocols and unusual clients. |
| Hybrid and remote users | Works well when applications are distributed across on-premises and cloud environments and identity is centralized. | Works when users can run a client and the gateway has a path to the required network. |
| User experience | Can be transparent after sign-in, but application onboarding and connector behavior must be reliable. | Familiar tunnel workflow, with possible client, routing, DNS and throughput issues. |
| Monitoring | Can produce application- and identity-level authorization events in addition to network telemetry. | Provides tunnel, authentication and network logs; application visibility may require separate controls. |
| Resilience concerns | Depends on broker, connectors, identity services and policy availability; design redundant paths and offline procedures. | Depends heavily on gateway capacity, redundant concentrators, authentication and reachable network paths. |
| Operating cost | Includes policy design, connectors, identity/device integration, licensing and application-by-application migration. | Includes gateway capacity, licensing, patching, segmentation, client support and incident response. |
Neither column is automatically “secure.” ZTNA narrows the authorization boundary by design, while a VPN can be safe for a defined use case when its exposure is minimized and its controls are operated well.
Why CISA and NIST emphasize the architectural shift
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in guidance dated June 18, 2024, urged organizations to move toward more robust approaches such as Zero Trust, Secure Service Edge and Secure Access Service Edge because they provide greater visibility of network activity. The same guidance discusses vulnerabilities and threats associated with traditional remote-access and VPN deployments and the business risk created by remote-access misconfiguration.
Rank #2
That warning is about deployment and exposure, not a claim that every VPN is unsafe. An internet-facing gateway is a high-value target. Weak authentication, unpatched appliances, overly broad routes, stale accounts, insecure administrative access or an accidental firewall exception can turn a remote-access service into a path through the environment. A VPN also can make post-compromise investigation harder when logs show a successful tunnel but not which individual application decisions followed.
NIST’s SP 1800-35 describes a zero-trust architecture as enabling secure, authorized access to resources distributed across on-premises and multiple cloud environments while supporting a hybrid workforce and partners from any location, at any time and from any device. That description is especially relevant when the business no longer has one internal perimeter to defend.
Microsoft’s network-pillar guidance describes moving access control away from the perimeter and closer to applications and resources. This is the central distinction: a VPN primarily answers “can this client reach this network?”; ZTNA is intended to answer “is this identity, on this device, in this context, allowed to use this particular resource right now?”
When ZTNA should be your first choice
Your applications are already organized around identity
ZTNA is a strong fit when employees and partners sign in through a central identity system, applications have clear owners, and access can be expressed as groups, roles or attributes. Device management and posture signals make the decision stronger, because a valid account on an unmanaged or compromised device can be treated differently from a compliant corporate endpoint.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Users and workloads are distributed
If applications span data centers, multiple clouds and SaaS services, routing everyone through one network can add unnecessary dependency and broad reach. An application-oriented policy can follow the resource instead of extending the same network to every worker. This also helps contractors and partners receive access to a defined service without becoming full network users.
Reducing lateral movement is a priority
Least-privilege application access limits what an attacker can discover or reach after stealing a session or compromising an endpoint. It does not eliminate risk: an attacker can still abuse the application itself or a privileged account. It does, however, reduce the number of unrelated internal systems exposed by the initial access path when policies and connectors are correctly configured.
You can modernize in application-sized waves
ZTNA works best when teams can inventory applications, identify protocols and dependencies, and test access with real users. A low-risk internal portal, documentation system or test service is a better first migration than a manufacturing control system or an application with undocumented dependencies.
When retaining a VPN is the practical answer
Legacy protocols need network-level behavior
Some older applications rely on broadcast discovery, fixed IP assumptions, unusual ports, thick-client behavior or protocols that an application-aware broker cannot publish cleanly. A VPN may be the least disruptive way to provide access while the application is redesigned, isolated or retired.
You need broad network-to-network connectivity
Site-to-site links, branch connectivity and infrastructure management can require routes between networks rather than a single user-to-application session. A VPN remains useful for these cases, provided routes and firewall rules are narrowly scoped and monitored.
The infrastructure cannot yet support a broker
Unmanaged devices, appliances without modern identity integration and systems that cannot run a connector may not be ready for ZTNA. Keep the exception explicit, assign an owner, document the reachable systems and set a review date instead of allowing a temporary VPN rule to become permanent by accident.
Operational resilience requires an independent path
During an identity-provider outage or a ZTNA connector failure, administrators may need emergency access to infrastructure. A separately controlled administrative path can be justified, but it should be limited to named operators, protected with strong authentication, logged, tested and disabled when not needed.
Does MFA make a VPN zero trust?
No. MFA substantially improves resistance to password reuse and many credential-theft attempts, but it verifies only one part of the decision. If a successful MFA session creates a broad network route, the user or attacker controlling that session may still be able to reach systems outside the original task.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
A hardened VPN should combine MFA with unique accounts, phishing-resistant methods where feasible, device or certificate checks, least-privilege groups, restricted routes, network segmentation, rapid patching, administrative access controls, session and authentication logging, and tested incident response. Those controls reduce exposure; they do not change the VPN’s basic network-connectivity model.
A phased migration plan that avoids an all-or-nothing swap
- Inventory the current exposure. Record users, devices, applications, protocols, data sensitivity, owners, dependencies, existing VPN routes, gateway locations, administrative interfaces and internet exposure. Include dormant accounts and rules that were created for projects that no longer exist.
- Classify applications by risk and readiness. Separate low-risk, identity-integrated applications from systems with privileged data, fragile dependencies or unsupported protocols. Document which services can be represented by an application connector and which require network access.
- Pilot ZTNA with a low-risk set. Enforce identity and device signals for a small user group. Measure sign-in success, latency, connector availability, policy exceptions, help-desk contacts and whether logs identify the application action you need to investigate. Microsoft documents pilot patterns using Global Secure Access or Azure VPN Gateway with Entra ID authentication; treat those as implementation examples, not a universal product choice.
- Keep a narrowly scoped VPN for incompatible systems. Restrict routes to the exact hosts and ports required, separate administrative and user access, remove split-tunnel exceptions that are not justified, and place legacy systems in segments that cannot reach unrelated critical assets.
- Add monitoring and review. Alert on unusual locations, impossible travel or sudden device changes when those signals are available; watch repeated policy denials, connector failures, new VPN routes and dormant accounts. Review access policies with application owners and security staff rather than allowing group membership to become the only control.
- Expand only when evidence supports it. After each migration wave, compare user experience, failure modes, support load, incident visibility, availability and total operating cost. Move the next application class only when the controls work for its real dependencies.
Controls to require whichever model you use
- Strong authentication: Use MFA for remote access and privileged operations, protect recovery methods, and remove accounts that no longer have a business need.
- Least privilege: Grant only the applications, hosts, ports and administrative actions required for a role. Time-limit elevated access where possible.
- Device assurance: Check enrollment, patch state, endpoint protection and encryption status when your management platform can provide reliable signals. Define what happens when a device becomes noncompliant.
- Segmentation: Separate users, servers, management planes, development environments and high-value systems. Do not rely on a single VPN group or ZTNA policy as the only barrier.
- Cryptography and patching: Use current, supported protocols and promptly patch gateways, connectors, clients and identity infrastructure.
- Logging: Retain authentication, policy decision, connector, route, administrative and application logs long enough to investigate incidents. Synchronize time across systems.
- Incident response: Test how to revoke sessions, disable a compromised account, quarantine a device, withdraw a route and continue essential operations if an identity or access service is unavailable.
- Policy governance: Give every rule an owner, purpose and review date. Remove temporary exceptions and reconcile access with HR and asset inventories.
How to compare total operating cost
Do not compare a VPN license with a ZTNA subscription and declare a winner. Count the full operating model for the access pattern you need.
Rank #4
| Cost area | Questions to answer for ZTNA | Questions to answer for VPN |
|---|---|---|
| Technology | What are the charges for users, applications, connectors, identity integration, device signals and redundant service capacity? | What are the gateway, client, authentication, support and capacity costs, including redundant appliances or services? |
| Migration | How much time is needed to map dependencies, publish applications, test policies and remediate unsupported protocols? | How much work is needed to redesign routes, segmentation and gateway exposure to reduce existing risk? |
| Operations | Who owns policy, connectors, application onboarding, troubleshooting and availability monitoring? | Who patches gateways and clients, manages routes and certificates, handles capacity and reviews firewall rules? |
| Support and productivity | What is the impact of sign-in prompts, device compliance failures, connector outages and application-specific exceptions? | What is the impact of client installation, DNS or routing conflicts, tunnel drops and slow gateway performance? |
| Risk and response | Will application-level logs shorten investigations, and what is the recovery plan if identity or broker services fail? | What is the blast radius of a stolen session, exposed gateway or overly broad route, and how quickly can access be revoked? |
A lower invoice can still produce a higher cost if it requires more support, leaves broad exposure in place or makes incidents difficult to investigate. Conversely, a ZTNA rollout can be wasteful if the organization lacks application ownership, reliable identity data or the capacity to migrate legacy dependencies.
Common mistakes and how to correct them
Declaring that ZTNA eliminates every VPN
Problem: Network-to-network links and legacy systems are forced into an application model they cannot support.
Correction: Keep a documented VPN exception, restrict its routes and revisit the underlying system during modernization planning.
Assuming a “zero-trust” label guarantees least privilege
Problem: A product is deployed with broad groups, static policies or no device signals, recreating a perimeter with a different interface.
Correction: Verify the actual policy inputs, resource granularity, continuous evaluation behavior, logs and revocation process.
Leaving VPN routes broader than the task requires
Problem: A user receives access to an entire subnet because it is easier than defining the application path.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Correction: Replace broad routes with host- and port-specific rules where feasible, separate administrative access and review every exception.
Piloting only with security staff
Problem: The design works for a small technical group but fails for field workers, partners or users with real-world devices and network conditions.
Correction: Include representative users, applications and devices, and measure support contacts and failed workflows as seriously as policy results.
Ignoring the failure path
Problem: An identity, broker, connector or gateway outage blocks critical work, so administrators create unsafe bypasses.
Correction: Define emergency access before rollout, test it, limit it to named operators and monitor every use.
Practical decisions for common business situations
Office and remote staff using modern web applications
Start with ZTNA for applications that have clear identity integration and no need for arbitrary network discovery. Keep policies application-specific and require device signals for sensitive data.
Engineers maintaining a mix of web tools and older thick clients
Use ZTNA for the web tools and retain a segmented VPN for the thick clients that need network-level behavior. Place the older systems in a restricted segment and set a modernization or retirement owner.
Partners needing one internal service
An application-scoped policy is generally easier to limit and review than a partner VPN that exposes a whole subnet. Give the partner a separate identity population, short-lived access where practical and logging that distinguishes partner activity from employee activity.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteBranches requiring infrastructure connectivity
A site-to-site VPN can remain appropriate. Limit advertised routes, authenticate both ends, monitor tunnel changes and keep branch devices patched. Use ZTNA separately for individual users accessing applications rather than extending the branch network to every user.
Bottom-line decision rule
Choose ZTNA first when your estate is application-oriented, identity and device management are mature, users are distributed, and limiting lateral movement is a priority. Choose or retain a VPN when the requirement is genuine network connectivity: legacy protocols, unmanaged infrastructure or site-to-site links that an application broker cannot yet represent. In both cases, require MFA, strong cryptography, patching, least privilege, segmentation, useful logs and tested incident response. The safest path for most businesses is a measured coexistence strategy that steadily moves suitable applications to ZTNA while shrinking and hardening the remaining VPN footprint.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
