Establishing azero trust modelin IoT environments
A realistic and executable approach to helping
your organization be better protected from
IoT-focused cyber threats

White paper

Executive
summary

In February of 2023, a United States healthcare provider disclosed that malicious actors breached their network,
exfiltrated clinical images and protected health information(PHI) about cancer patients, then published it in the publicdomain. The attackers demanded ransom, but the provider
refused to pay.1 The attackers then published the dataon the dark web in retaliation. An organization with a noble
mission and vital role in our society suffered disruption, theloss of data and reputation and likely monetary damages.
However, this story is unique in at least one respect: thehackers exploited the convergence of Internet of Things(IoT) and information technology (IT) systems, a convergence that is also growing exponentially, not just in
healthcare provision but across all industries and sectors.
In this case, a medical device (IoT) captured patient images
for radiation oncology treatment and transferred them toa networked computer system (IT).
Many organizations are deploying IoT devices throughout theirfacilities and networks—cameras, monitors, sensors, appliances and other gadgets—but are they protecting themselvesfrom cybersecurity threats? Perhaps they do not know how
best to approach this imperative. In this paper, we lay out
a comprehensive approach to doing just this, based on theconcept of zero trust. The National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-2072
provides the following definition of zero trust: Zero trust provides a collection of concepts and ideas designed to minimize
uncertainty in enforcing accurate, least privilege per-request
access decisions in information systems and services in theface of a network viewed as compromised.

The paper discusses common IoT cyber threats to organizations, categorizing them based on a popular framework,
then offers a four-step process to address them based ona zero trust capability model.

Four-step process to addresscommon IoT cyber threats using
the zero trust capability model
1. Establish baseline of current capabilities.
2. Prioritize the capability model to your IoT gaps.
3. Map potential supplier services to IoT priorities.
4. Map solutions to threat types and assign
maturity levels.

The content within the paper offers realistic and achievable
overarching guidance to help protect organizations in theincorporation of IoT throughout operational infrastructuresusing zero trust architectures.

The guidance in the paper is straightforward and written forlay readers, while being tactically executable. It stands tobenefit not only IT and cybersecurity professionals, but also
other organizational stakeholders, from small businesses,
large enterprises and government agencies. Some terminology is specific to the fields of IT and cybersecurity, but we
attempt to define all terms so that all readers can easily
understand them.

1. The HIPAA Journal
2. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-207, Zero Trust Architecture

Establishing a zero trust model in IoT environments

2

Tactics, techniques
and procedures(TTPs) for IoT attacks
The adversarial attack patterns used to exploit weaknesses
in IoT ecosystems are diverse, rapidly evolving and theadversaries’ tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs)
employed to exploit those weaknesses are effective.
Several years ago, many of the publicized IoT security
events were Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks
using compromised IoT devices. DDoS attacks are stillprevalent today; however, the attack patterns and results
are becoming more diverse and complex.
The remaining part of this section provides examples ofcommon TTPs adversaries use to exploit IoT systems andwhere applicable, describes how the TTPs for IoT converge
with attacks on IT. The TTPs used in this section align to

the MITRE ATT&CK3 framework and have been validated
in practice by Verizon’s more than 20 years of experience
responding to security breaches. Additionally, the TTPs
used in the subsequent sections of this document todescribe approaches to applying zero trust to IoT security
initiatives.
Table 1 provides eight common adversary TTPs and thecommon IoT threat vectors related to those TTPs. The
columns titled “Technique” and “Technique Description”
were extracted from the MITRE ATT&CK framework.
The column titled “Common IoT Threat Vectors” provides
real-world observations based on Verizon’s experience
securing IoT devices.

Table 1: Tactics, techniques and common IoT threat vectors
TechniqueTechnique description

Common IoT threat vectors

Exploitation forclient execution

Adversaries may exploit software
vulnerabilities in client applications
to execute code. Vulnerabilities can
exist in software due to unsecured
coding practices that can lead tounanticipated behavior.

• Many IoT devices are unable to be patched bytraditional, centrally managed IT tools.

External remote
services• Often IoT networks are excluded from vulnerabilityscans and remediation activities due to lack ofresources and/or concerns about the potential impact
to business operations.

Adversaries may leverage external• IoT devices typically have remote managementfacing remote services to initially accessfunctionality enabled by default when shipped by the
and/or persist within a network. Remotemanufacturer. The default username and passwords
services such as virtual private networks
are often enabled.
(VPNs), Citrix and other access• When a network is compromised and an attacker hasmechanisms allow users to connect tovalid user credentials, the attacker could use a VPN
internal enterprise network resources
connection to move laterally into an IoT network.
from external locations.

3. MITRE ATT&CK

Establishing a zero trust model in IoT environments

3

Tactics, techniques andprocedures for IoT attacks
Table 1 (cont.)
TechniqueTechnique description

Lateral tooltransfer

Adversaries may transfer tools or other• Compromised IoT devices that are not physically or
files between systems in a compromised
logically segmented on the network are used for lateralenvironment. Once brought into the
movements, data exfiltration and as a launching point
victim environment (i.e. ingress tool
for additional malicious software.
transfer) files may then be copiedfrom one system to another to stage
adversary tools or other files over thecourse of an operation.

Hardwareadditions

Adversaries may introduce computer
accessories, networking hardware orother computing devices into a systemor network that can be used as a vector
to gain access.

• Adversaries introduce unapproved hardware; however,
it is more common for end-users to introduce
unapproved, insecure IoT devices on the networks.

Exfiltration
over alternative
protocolAdversaries may steal data by exfiltrating
it over a different protocol than that of theexisting command and control channel.
The data may also be sent to an alternate
network location from the main commandand control server.

• IoT devices typically have file sharing protocols enabled
by default when shipped by the manufacturer, making
IoT devices an excellent threat vector to exfiltrate data
(e.g., FTP).

Exfiltration overother network
mediums

Adversaries may attempt to exfiltrate
data over a different network medium
than the command and control channel.
If the command and control network
is a wired Internet connection, theexfiltration may occur, for example, overa Wi-Fi connection, modem, cellular
data connection, Bluetooth or anotherradio frequency (RF) channel.

• IoT connectivity options are diverse (wired, wireless,e.g., 5G, 4G LTE, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.). Adversaries use
these options to evade security monitoring tools and/or
because the security controls are not implemented forcertain connection types but not for others.

User execution

An adversary may rely upon specificactions by a user in order to gain
execution. Users may be subjected tosocial engineering to get them to execute
malicious code by, for example, opening a
malicious document file or link.

• Victim-operated phishing attacks used to distributemalware that disables or destroys the IoT device (i.e.,“bricking” is an effective way to disrupt operations
before, during and after an attack). Many malware
sandboxing technologies can’t be installed on the IoT
devices’ operating system.

Network Denialof Service

Adversaries may perform network denial • As part of a large botnet, compromised IoT devices areof service (DoS) attacks to degradeused to launch DoS attacks due to the high-volume,or block the availability of targeted
distributed nature of the devices.
resources to users. Network DoS canbe performed by exhausting the network
bandwidth services rely on.

Establishing a zero trust model in IoT environments

Common IoT threat vectors

4

Zero Trust
Capability Model

Now that we’ve covered examples of the tactics, techniques
and procedures (TTPs) that are used to exploit common
attack vectors across IoT and IT systems. We will now
discuss applying the principles of zero trust. This section
provides an illustrative example of a zero trust capability
model, describes how to tailor to an IoT initiative using afour-step process and explains best practices.
Verizon developed the zero trust capability model (ZT
Capability Model) described in this document based on
multiple industry, government and/or technology partner
guidelines. The ZT Capability Model is the foundation of thisdocument and the subsequent sections of this document

describe how to use this model to apply the principles ofzero trust to IoT security initiatives.
Table 2 depicts the ZT Capability Model with 8 ZT pillars
and 48 ZT Capabilities. The ZT pillars are the black boxes
organized horizontally. The ZT capabilities are organizedvertically to each ZT pillar.
Note: Your organization may be required to use
a different model for zero trust that would takeprecedence over the model outlined in this paper.

Table 2: Zero trust capability modelCore capabilities

Core pillars
User

DeviceNetwork

Infrastructure

Application

Data

Visibility andanalytics

Orchestration& automation

Accessmanagement

Vulnerability
management

Zero trustarchitecture

Cloudworkload
protection

Webapplication
firewall

Encryption

Devicevisibility

Policy engine

Authentication

Devicesecurity

Softwaredefined
networking

Cloud-accesssecurity
broker

Application
security

Data security

Threatintelligence

Policyadministrator

User & entity
behavior
analytics

Deviceidentity

Segmentation

SaaS
management
platform

Container
security

Data spillage

Security
information
event mgmt

Policyenforcement
point

Identity
management

Devicecompliance

Network
security

Secure accessservice edge

Secureaccess cloud

Informationrightsmanagement

CDM system

Security
policymanagement

Conditional
accessDeviceauthentication

Zero trust
network access

Isolation

Data loss
prevention

Dynamic riskscoring

Devicemanagement

Network access
control

Any device
accessIndustry
complianceDeviceinventory

Transport
encryption

Integrity

Enterprise
mobility
management

Sessionprotection

Classification

Establishing a zero trust model in IoT environments

5

Executing a 4-step processusing zero trust architecture
Step 1:
Establish baseline of current capabilities.
The first step of the zero trust IoT initiative is to establish
a baseline of your organization’s current capabilities using
a simple color-coded schema to represent the capabilities
that you currently meet, partially meet and do not meet
(i.e., your current mode of operation (CMO).

Table 3 illustrates a notionally populated version of the
ZT Capability using a color-coded schema where green
means “Met,” yellow means “Partially met,” and redmeans “Not met.”

Table 3: Zero trust capability model—capability coverage (notional)

Core capabilities

Core pillars

Met

Partially met

Not metUser

DeviceNetwork

Infrastructure

Application

Data

Visibility andanalytics

Orchestration& automation

Accessmanagement

Vulnerability
management

Zero trustarchitecture

Cloudworkload
protection

Webapplication
firewall

Encryption

Devicevisibility

Policy engine

Authentication

Devicesecurity

Softwaredefined
networking

Cloud-accesssecurity
broker

Application
security

Data security

Threatintelligence

Policyadministrator

User & entity
behavior
analytics

Deviceidentity

Segmentation

SaaS
management
platform

Container
security

Data spillage

Security
information
event mgmt

Policyenforcement
point

Identity
management

Devicecompliance

Network
security

Secure accessservice edge

Secureaccess cloud

Informationrightsmanagement

CDM system

Security
policymanagement

Conditional
accessDeviceauthentication

Zero trust
network
accessIsolation

Data loss
prevention

Dynamic riskscoring

Devicemanagement

Network
accesscontrol

Any device
accessIndustry
complianceDeviceinventory

Transport
encryption

Integrity

Enterprise
mobility
management

Sessionprotection

Classification

Establishing a zero trust model in IoT environments

6

Step 1:
Establish baseline of current capabilities.

Recommendations:
Every project or initiative has a starting point. Look togather the right people, set the right timelines and berealistic with goal setting. The below points break out
recommendations on how to frame the beginning of thezero trust project.
1. Stakeholders—Assemble a team of cross-functional
expertise in order to establish zero trust as an enterprisewide initiative (e.g., Security, IT Operations, Finance,etc.). If security protocols touch a group or department’s
work product, then it can be assumed they should be
represented as a stakeholder.
2. Timeline—Ask the team to participate in two time-boxed
meetings. The first meeting should consist of gathering
team input resulting in a partially populated capability
model. Consider a bulletin board or computer program
allowing sticky notes with pillars and applications that you
can move around and prioritize as a group. The second
meeting should result in a completed and agreed uponcapability model and timeline to revisit the model to trackprogress (e.g., quarterly, bi-annual, annual).
3. Deliverables—Produce 10 slides. The slide deck should
comprise of a one slide executive summary, one slidewith the color-coded model and eight slides that provide
the definition of each pillar and each capability that maps
to that pillar.

Note: Priorities will surface during Step 1 but be
codified in Step 2.

4. Priorities—Do not worry about prioritizing the pillars andcapabilities at this step. Just capture the components
specific to your organization under pillars.

Establishing a zero trust model in IoT environments

7

Step 2:
Prioritize the ZT Capability Model to yourzero trust IoT gaps.
The second step is to align the pillar and capabilities
specifically to your IoT initiative based on the findings
from the previous step. The purpose of this step is toalign and organize the ZT Capability Model with your IoTpriorities. Table 4 provides a notional illustration of theoutput of this step.

• The eight pillars have now been reorganized from left
to right, with the device pillar listed first in order to depict
the importance of the IoT devices.
• The capabilities have been reorganized into the 3color-coded “buckets” to illustrate the top priorities
by capability. The primary priorities are in red and thesecondary priorities are in yellow.

Table 4: Top priorities by pillar (notional)

Core capabilities

Core pillars

Met

Partially met

Not metDeviceNetwork

Infrastructure

Visibility andanalytics

Application

User

Data

Orchestration& automation

Vulnerability
management

Zero trust
network
accessSecure accessservice edge

Devicevisibility

Isolation

Dynamic riskscoring

Data loss
prevention

Security policy
management

Devicemanagement

Segmentation

Security
information
event mgmt

Threatintelligence

Any device
accessConditional
accessIndustry
compliance

Policyenforcement
point

Deviceinventory

Softwaredefined
networking

Threatintelligence

Security
information
event mgmt

Secureaccess cloud

User & entity
behavior
analytics

Classification

Policyadministrator

DevicecomplianceTransport
encryption

Secure accessservice edge

CDM system

Application
security

Identity
management

Data spillage

Policy engine

Devicesecurity

Sessionprotection

Webapplication
firewallAccessmanagement

Data security

Deviceidentity

Network
security

Container
security

Authentication

Encryption

Deviceauthentication

Network
accesscontrol

Informationrightsmanagement

Enterprise
mobility
management

Zero trustarchitecture

Integrity

Recommendations:
1. High priorities—Limit the highest priorities (i.e., in red) to the
top two capabilities by pillar. These are priorities you want toaccomplish first because of constraints (e.g., budget).

Note: Your organization may have more than two
red priority capabilities based on the nature of yourbusiness model. Keep in mind everything can’t be
red and a priority. And on the contrary, there could
be just one priority capability.

2. Solution convergence—Modern solutions converge
many of the capabilities into a single platform resulting
in a “domino effect” that turns many of the capabilities“green” (e.g., secure access service edge (SASE).
Establishing a zero trust model in IoT environments

8

Step 3:
Map potential supplier services to zero trust IoT priorities.

Your organization may have a good feel for the inner workingsof your business processes, but how does that model take
into account multitudes of suppliers who may plug into yourmodel? After completing the prioritization activity, the next
step is to evaluate how your organization and suppliers canaddress the top gaps identified in the previous steps. Moresimply stated, this is a way to determine if a supplier can help
you move from “red” to “green.”
Table 5 is a notionally populated illustration that can be used
to evaluate a supplier’s capabilities to determine if they canmeet your gaps. You can send this template to your suppliers
without the service offerings and consumption model
populated, and then have your supplier populate the answers.
• The top two capability gaps by pillar are color-codedin dark gray.

• Service offerings are the names of the supplier’s services
that map to one or more of the capability gaps.
• The consumption model is used to note the delivery
model of the supplier’s offering. “Managed” means theoffering is a managed service. “Consulting” means there
are consulting and/or professional services involved in the
supplier’s service. “Resell” means the supplier resells an
original equipment manufacturer (OEM) product without
managed or consulting services attached. “Caveats”
means there are additional considerations for discussion.

Note: For the purposes of this model, a supplieris defined as a provider of services, solutions andequipment in support of the network infrastructure.

• The gray box below the capability gaps contains two
sections titled: “Service offerings” and “Delivery model.”Table 5: Supplier service offering mapped to zero trust IoT priorities (notional)

Delivery modelService offerings

Core capabilities

Core pillars
DeviceNetwork

Infrastructure

Visibility andanalytics

Application

User

Data

Orchestration& automation

Vulnerability
management

Zero trust
network access

Secure accessservice edge

Devicevisibility

Isolation

Dynamic riskscoring

Data loss
prevention

Security policy
management

Devicemanagement

Segmentation

Security
information
event mgmt

Threatintelligence

Any device
accessConditional
accessIndustry
compliance

Policyenforcement
point• Vulnerability
management
service(VMS) forvulnerability
management• Security
service edge
(SSE) forzero trust
network
access• SSE forsecureaccessservice edge
(SASE)• IoT device
management
servicefor device
visibility• SSE forisolation• SSE fordynamic riskscoring• SSE fordata loss
prevention• IoT device
management
servicefor device
management• Security
service edge
(SSE) forsegmentation• SD-WAN for
SASE• SSE fordevicevisibility• SSE forconditional
access• IT risk
assessment
for industry
compliance• Security
serviceedge (SSE)for device
management• SoftwareDefined
Wide Area
Network(SD-WAN) for
segmentation

Managed: Yes
Consulting: Yes
Resell: No
Caveats: Yes

Managed: Yes
Consulting: Yes
Resell: No
Caveats: Yes• SSE forcloud accesssecurity
brokerManaged: Yes
Consulting: Yes
Resell: No
Caveats: Yes

Establishing a zero trust model in IoT environments• SSE forany device
access• VMS fordynamic riskscoring• Security
informationand eventmanagement(SIEM)
for device
visibility

Managed: Yes
Consulting: Yes
Resell: No
Caveats: Yes

Managed: Yes
Consulting: Yes
Resell: No
Caveats: Yes

Managed: Yes
Consulting: Yes
Resell: No
Caveats: Yes• Penetration
testing forindustry
complianceManaged: Yes
Consulting: Yes
Resell: No
Caveats: Yes• SSE forsecurity
policymanagement• IoT device
management
servicefor device
management• SSE forpolicyenforcement
point

Managed: Yes
Consulting: Yes
Resell: No
Caveats: Yes

9Step 3:
Map potential supplier services to zero trust IoT priorities.

Recommendations:
1. Caveats—When evaluating supplier solutions (existingand new), discuss caveats to their service offerings todetermine the impact to your requirements. For example,
if you require a FedRAMP Authorized solution, identify if
the supplier’s service offering meets that requirement.
2. Mapping—Limit the supplier’s mapping of their service
offerings in your first discussion to their top 3 service
offerings per core pillar. This approach will help keep theconversation narrowly focused on your priorities insteadof their capabilities, which they may broaden to gain afurther foothold in an organization. If the supplier cannot
meet your top priorities now or in the very near future(i.e., color-coded red), they may not be able to meet yoursecondary or tertiary priorities (i.e., color-coded amber).
3. One-to-many ZT capability mapping— If a supplier’s
services meet your top priorities (i.e., color-coded red,“Not met”), then have the supplier complete the same
mapping to your secondary and tertiary priorities (i.e.,color-coded amber, “Not met”). This activity will result in
identifying the supplier’s solutions that map to the rest of
the ZT Capability Model.

Note: Your organization may need to be ready froma budget standpoint to fund gaps within the modelthat were not accounted for originally, including
the enablement of new functionality that exists inpreexisting platforms. Additionally, you may identify
capabilities in preexisting platforms that can be
enabled without additional budget.

Establishing a zero trust model in IoT environments

10Step 4:Map solutions to threat types and assign
zero trust maturity levels.

After completing the mapping solutions and technology
platforms to your priorities, it is vital to begin mapping out
the different types of attacks your organization may receiveto the identified pillars and capabilities. The next steps arelisted below.
Table 6 illustrates a notionally populated example ofthe output.
• Maps TTPs from the MITRE ATT&CK framework
to your solutions.

• Provide a brief description of the key componentsof the solution.
• Map the solutions to the primary ZT pillar and ZT
capability addressed.
• Determine how the solutions improve your zero trust
maturity level—the current mode of operation (CMO) is
your current maturity level without the solution. The futuremode of operation (FMO) is the maturity level you willachieve after implementing the solution(s).

Table 6: Mapping of solutions to attack types with zero trust maturity level assignment
MITRE ATT&CK

Solution

PillarCapability

CMO

FMO

Exploitation forclient execution• Perform vulnerability scans on 100%of IoT devices

DeviceVulnerability
management

Not metMet

Network

Zero trust
network access

Not metMet

Network

Segmentation

Not metMet

Visibility &analytics

Device visibility

Not metPartially met• Perform vulnerability scans on ascheduled basis• Remediate vulnerabilities on acontinuous basis
External remote
services• Deploy security service edge (SSE)
solution• Remove virtual private network (VPN)
hardware• Enable conditional access in SSE
solution with MFA

Lateral tooltransfer• Implement microsegmentation using
SSE solution• Restrict traffic flows with SSE-based
FW, IDS/IPS• Implement 5G network slicing for IoT
networks

Hardwareadditions• Continuously track and reconcile IoT
assets in CMBD
• Perform asset discovery withvulnerability scanners• Deploy NAC to block unapproved
hardware additions

Establishing a zero trust model in IoT environments

11

Step 4:Map solutions to threat types and assign
zero trust maturity levels.
Table 6 (cont.)
MITRE ATT&CK

Solution

PillarCapability

CMO

FMO

Exfiltration
over alternative
protocol• Disable protocols on IoT devices
pre-deployment

Data

Data loss
prevention

Not metMet

Visibility

Security
informationand eventmanagement

Not metMet

Application Isolation

Not metPartially met

Network

Not metMet• Implement DLP controls on all
IoT networks• Perform continuous
vulnerability scans

Exfiltration overother network
medium• Perform event logging on IoT
networks into SIEM
• Monitor and analyze IoT network
traffic• Implement user and entity behavior
analytics (UEBA)

User execution• Perform malware sandboxingwith SSE solution• Configure cloud access security broker(CASB) prevent unsanctioned cloud use• Deploy application control
to block executables

Network Denial of • Implement microsegmentation
Service (DoS)
using SSE solution

Segmentation• Enable DDoS protection in SSE
for outbound traffic• Deploy DDoS protection for
inbound traffic

Recommendations:
1. Solution convergence—Step #4 is where yourorganization will identify and document the one-to-many
mapping from a single solution to multiple ZT pillars and
ZT capabilities. For example, a security service edge
(SSE) solution addresses multiple ZT capabilities acrossMultiple ZT Pillars.
2. Cross-pillar capabilities— Although there is typically a
one-to-many mapping of solutions to the ZT Capability
Model (i.e., cross-pillar capabilities), assign one solution
to one ZT pillar and one ZT capability; this will likely
mean listing a solution more than once. This approach
Establishing a zero trust model in IoT environments

helps streamline your organization’s efforts, prioritizes
your approach and makes the output of the exercise
more easily consumable for audiences that may not haveextensive knowledge about zero trust and/or IoT security.
3. Frameworks—The framework chosen for this white paper
was the MITRE ATT&CK framework because of the wideindustry adoption, the applicability of the TTPs to IoT andthe compatibility with the concepts of zero trust.
4. Acronyms—The acronyms used but not defined in the
document are: firewall (FW), intrusion detection system/
intrusion prevention system (IDS/IPS), configuration
management database (CMDB), data loss prevention(DLP), network access control (NAC), security informationand event management (SIEM), cloud access security
broker (CASB).
12

HelpingThe
challenge
your organization
be better protected.
Closing
In the opening paragraph of this paper, we noted therecent story of an unfortunate US healthcare provider
who was hacked at the convergence of IoT and IT, aconvergence that is growing exponentially across allindustries and sectors.
Many organizations are deploying IoT devices throughout
their facilities and networks and they must protect
themselves from disruption as well as loss of data,
reputation and money. In this paper, we discussed
a comprehensive approach based on a Zero Trust
Capability Model:
1. Establish baseline of current capabilities
2. Prioritize the capability model to your IoT gaps
3. Map potential supplier services to IoT priorities
4. Map solutions to threat types and assign maturity levels
The model outlined in the paper is a solid, realistic andexecutable approach to helping your organization be better
protected from IoT-focused cyber threats. Additionally,
the steps described in this model sets the stage for yourorganization to iterate and track progress at a frequency
that fits your needs (e.g., quarterly).
Verizon believes the model can be understood by all
stakeholders and implemented effectively.

Why Verizon?
Verizon Cyber Security Consulting is a global leader with asecurity team of over 600 consultants in 30 countries.
Verizon’s security consulting provides clients withsolutions to identify, protect, detect, respond, and recoverfrom cyber threats. Verizon’s approach to cybersecurity
is comprehensive, helping organizations reduce risks anddefend against cyber threats. The consulting services
team is dedicated to delivering excellence and staying
ahead of the ever-changing landscape of cyber security,
helping customers with their transformation. By utilizing
advanced technologies and industry-leading practices,
Verizon’s security consulting services help organizations
Implement and deliver complex solutions to achieve thedesired level of risk.
Services range from advisory to ongoing management
services, covering next gen cyber defense, enterprisesecurity for zero trust networking and SASE, IT andapplication security services, and security operations
incident response and security tools lifecycle management.

Verizon contributors
Wes Withrow, Public Sector Solutions Executive
Ashish Khanna, Director, Security Consulting Services
Brett Barganz, Solutions Executive, Connected Healthcare
Grant O’Brien, Manager, Federal/Defense Marketing

Many organizations turn to a capable partner like
Verizon on their journey to zero trust for IoT.
If you would like assistance, visit our Zero Trust
Dynamic Access web page.

© 2023 Verizon.