Step 1: Asset mapping. How does network traffic analysis reveal what you really have in your network?
Every implementation of Zero Trust architecture must begin with answering one fundamental question: what exactly do we want to protect? It may sound trivial, but for most organizations it remains the biggest unknown. In dynamic IT environments – with public cloud, virtualization, IoT, microservices and containers – infrastructure changes daily. Devices are added and removed, applications updated and data flows constantly evolve. It is difficult to speak about verification and segmentation if you don’t know what actually exists in the network and how it communicates.
From theory to practice: inventory as the starting point
The first step toward Zero Trust is always a complete asset inventory – a process that answers not only the question “what do we have in the network”, but also “who uses what and for what purpose”. Only on this basis can access policies, segmentation and identity verification be defined.
In practice, this requires building two types of visibility:
Inventory visibility – knowledge of all hosts, devices, servers and applications.
Contextual visibility – understanding how these elements cooperate at the level of network communication.
Traditional scanners and CMDB tools only provide information about what exists. They do not show how these elements interact. In the world of Zero Trust, that is far from enough.
The role of monitoring: how network traffic analysis creates a full map of the environment
This is where passive network traffic analysis plays a key role, delivered by systems like Sycope. Such solutions do not require agents or active scanning – they act like a security “sonar,” analyzing packets and flows (NetFlow, sFlow, IPFIX) in real time to discover all communicating elements of the infrastructure.
What the system delivers:
automatic identification of all active devices, applications and servers (including forgotten or undocumented ones),
detection of Shadow IT instances – virtual machines, containers or cloud services invisible to traditional inventories,
recognition of traffic types (HTTP, DNS, SSH, RDP, API, database traffic, etc.),
creation of a topological map visualizing relationships between components.
Example:
A monitoring system detects communication between an unknown host and a database server on port 3306. No such machine exists in the CMDB. Packet analysis reveals that it is a forgotten test server that has been maintaining a connection with the production database for months. Zero Trust implementation exposes such risks and allows immediate mitigation.
Understanding flows – who talks to whom
A list of devices is only the beginning. The greatest value of network traffic analysis lies in understanding communication flows – how individual system components actually work together.
In practice:
the application server communicates with the database on port 3306 (MySQL),
the CRM application sends data to an external API via HTTPS (443),
the log server receives syslog traffic from selected hosts (514/UDP),
office network users access the intranet portal (port 443).
This knowledge is crucial for security – it allows distinguishing normal, predictable traffic from unusual behavior. This “who talks to whom” view forms the basis for designing microsegmentation policies and later anomaly detection.
Example table of flows detected by the monitoring system
| Source | Destination | Port / Protocol | Nature of connection | Security status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WebServer01 | DBServer01 | 3306 / TCP | Consistent application traffic | Allowed |
| HRServer | Fileserver01 | 445 / SMB | One-time test connection | Suspicious |
| NewHost | DBServer01 | 3306 / TCP | Unusual traffic outside VLAN | Alert |
| CRMApp | API-Partner | 443 / HTTPS | Continuous data exchange | Allowed |
| Workstation05 | AdminPanel | 22 / SSH | Connection outside authorized list | Blocked |
Such a flow map reveals which relationships comply with the security policy and which require intervention. This enables the organization to build segmentation rules precisely – instead of blocking or allowing traffic “just in case.”
From visibility to action
Network traffic analysis transforms visibility into operational insight. Thanks to it:
IT teams understand which systems actually communicate,
SecOps can identify unusual flows,
DevOps teams can understand microservice dependencies,
and IT leadership gains a complete picture of the environment – the foundation for further Zero Trust implementation.
In practice, this map – obtained through monitoring – becomes the reference point for building microsegmentation policies, defining access rules and validating architectural correctness.
Step 2: From map to microsegmentation. How monitoring data enables building and enforcing policies
Once an organization has a complete map of its environment – sees all assets, understands the dependencies between them and knows which flows are necessary for applications to function – it can move to the next stage of the Zero Trust architecture: creating and enforcing microsegmentation policies. This is the moment when the concept of “never trust, always verify” becomes truly practical.
Building policies based on real traffic flows
Network monitoring provides an accurate picture of communication between systems. Thanks to this, it is possible to precisely determine which connections are genuinely required and which represent unnecessary or risky communication channels. Unlike traditional firewall rules, microsegmentation policies are based not on assumptions (“allow internal VLAN traffic”), but on concrete data from real network behavior.
Example:
The flow map shows that an application server communicates with a database only through a single required connection. All additional traffic is unnecessary. Based on this, we create a Zero Trust rule:
Allow: the specific communication path required for the application to function
Block: all other outbound traffic from that server, including attempts to reach unrelated systems
This approach eliminates unnecessary communication, prevents lateral movement and reduces the impact of potential breaches.
Example microsegmentation policy table
| Source (group) | Destination (group) | Port / Protocol | Action | Objective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Application servers | Database servers | Required application port | Allow | Essential application communication |
| Application servers | HR systems | – | Block | Prevent lateral movement |
| Workstations | Admin panel | SSH | Allow only for admin accounts | Controlled privileged access |
| Unknown hosts | Any resource | – | Block | Protection against Shadow IT |
| Backup systems | Storage nodes | File transfer protocol | Allow | Regular data replication |
These rules are derived from real flows identified during traffic analysis, ensuring that microsegmentation reflects actual operational needs and does not disrupt applications.
Why monitoring data is essential
Without precise knowledge of normal traffic patterns, creating policies would be guesswork. Network monitoring helps build a baseline – a model of legitimate behavior for applications and users. Based on this baseline, organizations can:
identify unnecessary or unused connections,
determine which flows are critical for application functionality,
roll out microsegmentation gradually with minimal risk,
monitor how new restrictions impact the environment and adjust policies accordingly.
As a result, segmentation becomes an iterative, data-driven process rather than a one-time configuration task.
Microsegmentation cannot be effectively implemented without solid monitoring data. Real traffic flows provide the foundation for building precise, granular security policies. This allows the organization not only to reduce its attack surface but also to maintain flexible, adaptive control as the infrastructure evolves.
Monitoring provides the insight.
Microsegmentation turns that insight into real control over the network.
Monitoring as the “eyes and ears” of the security architecture
One of the most common mistakes made when implementing Zero Trust architecture is treating it as a project with a defined beginning and end. In reality, Zero Trust cannot be “implemented” once and left unchanged. It is a process of continuous verification, assessment and adaptation. Infrastructure evolves every day – new applications, devices and integrations appear, while older systems are moved, updated or decommissioned. Each of these changes can impact security. For that reason, the principle “always verify” applies not only to users or sessions, but to the entire network environment.
Zero Trust is a process, not a project
Unlike traditional security strategies that ended once a firewall or IPS was deployed, Zero Trust requires ongoing observation and confirmation that the environment behaves according to established policies. It is not about creating static rules but continuously evaluating them against real traffic. A network that was fully compliant with microsegmentation policies yesterday may look entirely different today – all it takes is a new test server, a partner’s cloud VPN connection or a production system update.
Continuous verification means that the security system must not only see traffic, but also understand it – and react immediately when something deviates from expected behavior.
The role of monitoring in maintaining continuous compliance
Systems like Sycope act as the organization’s central nervous system in this model. They analyze network traffic in real time and compare it against the defined reference baseline and microsegmentation rules. If they detect activity that violates these rules or diverges from established communication patterns, they generate an alert and immediately notify the security team.
Practical example:
A monitoring system detects that a web server, which according to policy should communicate only with a designated backend service, suddenly attempts to connect to an unrelated system within the network. For a traditional firewall, this may appear to be legitimate traffic – technically valid and without any signature of a known attack. But for a Zero Trust–aware monitoring platform, it is a clear violation of the intended security context. An alert is generated, enabling SecOps to react instantly: block the attempt, investigate logs and determine whether the application has been compromised.
Such alerts are invaluable because they highlight not only security breaches but also the early signs of environmental drift. In this sense, monitoring functions as a change detector, identifying every deviation from the designed model.
Monitoring – essential at every stage of Zero Trust
One of the greatest advantages of monitoring systems is their universality across the entire Zero Trust lifecycle. They operate effectively in three complementary phases:
| Implementation stage | Role of monitoring | Business / security objective |
|---|---|---|
| Before implementation | Mapping the environment and discovering assets | Reveal unknown elements and hidden relationships |
| During implementation | Building microsegmentation policies based on real traffic | Create rules aligned with actual communication patterns |
| After implementation | Continuous verification, anomaly detection and incident response | Maintain compliance with the “always verify” principle |
In this sense, network monitoring is not an add-on to Zero Trust – it is the operational backbone. It provides the data needed both to build policies and to validate their effectiveness over time.
In a mature security architecture, monitoring acts as the eyes and ears – constantly observing, comparing and responding. Thanks to it, Zero Trust becomes a living, adaptive process rather than a static framework. Without continuous monitoring, the principle “always verify” loses its meaning, because verification requires not only data but also context and immediate reaction. Monitoring delivers both.
How to begin implementing Zero Trust with network visibility
Building a Zero Trust architecture often seems overwhelming – it involves user identity, access control, segmentation, monitoring and automated response. No wonder many organizations start from the wrong end: they invest in advanced IAM, SIEM or NAC systems without first understanding which assets actually exist in their network. The result? Expensive solutions operate in a limited scope because they lack the data necessary to function effectively.
Don’t try to implement everything at once
Zero Trust is not a “big bang” project. It does not require an immediate transformation of the entire environment. What it does require is a deliberate and sequential approach – starting from the foundations that provide context and control. Implementing the principle “never trust, always verify” without knowing what actually exists in the network is like installing an alarm system in a building without knowing its layout.
The key recommendation is simple: do not start with authentication or identity tools if you do not have full network visibility. Even the best MFA or PAM solutions will not help if your infrastructure contains undocumented systems, outdated applications or forgotten open ports.
The first practical step: gain full network visibility
Awareness is the foundation of Zero Trust. That’s why the first step is to deploy a network traffic analysis system that enables automatic discovery of devices, servers, applications and their connections. Such solutions – like Sycope – let you see the network as it truly is, not as described in documentation or diagrams.
Real-time traffic analysis provides the organization with:
a full list of active assets, including forgotten or out-of-CMDB systems,
insight into data flows between systems and users,
the ability to build dependency maps – the foundation of future microsegmentation policies,
immediate detection of anomalies and communication attempts outside defined zones.
This awareness becomes the starting point for the entire strategy. Only with full network visibility can you safely implement the remaining elements of the architecture: identity verification, least-privilege principles, access control and automated response.
From visibility to maturity
In practice, Zero Trust implementation progresses in stages:
| Stage | Objective | Outcome for the organization |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Visibility | Gain a full picture of the environment through network traffic analysis | Discovery of all assets and relationships in the network |
| 2. Control | Develop access and microsegmentation policies based on real data | Reduced attack surface and minimized lateral movement risk |
| 3. Verification | Implement continuous monitoring and detection of deviations from the baseline | Early breach detection and rapid response |
| 4. Automation | Integrate with security and orchestration systems (SOAR, SIEM, IAM) | Fully adaptive security architecture |
Each stage builds on the previous one – and all of them begin with visibility. Without it, the remaining steps have no reliable reference point.
Zero Trust architecture is not a set of products but a way of thinking about security. And every reasoning process begins with understanding – in this case, understanding what is truly happening in your network. Network visibility is not just the first step. It is the pillar supporting the entire Zero Trust structure – from analysis, to segmentation, to continuous verification and response.
That’s why before you deploy control mechanisms, make sure you truly see everything they are meant to protect.
