Zero Trust Network Access vs. VPN: Which is More Secure?

Securing remote access is now key for cybersecurity; Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) and virtual private networks (VPNs) are two approaches organizations consider. VPNs have been the default choice for years, securely connecting remote employees to corporate networks and playing a vital role in supporting the shift to hybrid work.

But the way attackers target remote access has changed. Stolen credentials, session hijacking, multi-factor authentication (MFA) prompt bombing attacks, and compromised devices have become common techniques for gaining unauthorized access. Verizon’s 2026 Data Breach Investigations Report continues to identify credential abuse as one of the leading causes of data breaches, prompting many organizations to reassess whether traditional VPNs still provide the level of security modern environments demand.

What is a VPN?

A virtual private network, or VPN, creates an encrypted tunnel between a user’s device and a corporate network. Once connected, the user can access internal applications, systems and resources as though they were physically on the company network.

The main benefit of a VPN is encryption, through protocols such as Point-to-Point Tunnelling (PPTP) and . All data that passes between a user and the network protects traffic as it moves across untrusted networks, such as home Wi-Fi or public internet connections. This allows employees to securely access private resources when working remotely, keeping their data private.

What is ZTNA?

Zero Trust Network Access, or ZTNA, is a security model for controlling access to applications and services based on identity, context and policy. Instead of placing a user “on the network” after authentication, ZTNA grants access to specific resources on a case-by-case basis.

When a user requests access, the ZTNA service evaluates a range of signals before allowing the connection. These can include the user’s:

• Identity
• Role
• Device posture
• Location

Access is not granted simply because a user has valid credentials or is connecting from a trusted network location. Instead, every request is assessed against policy, and access is limited to the specific application or service the user is authorized to use.

ZTNA vs. VPN: The key differences

The advantages of ZTNA over VPNs

ZTNA gives organizations a more precise way to secure remote access. Instead of extending the corporate network to every authenticated user, it verifies each access request and only grants access to the specific resources that person is approved to use. That creates several security advantages over traditional VPNs.

1. Less implicit trust

A VPN typically works on the assumption that once a user is authenticated, they can be trusted inside the network. ZTNA takes a more cautious approach, evaluating every request continuously throughout a session.

2. More granular access control

ZTNA limits access at the application level. A user can be approved for one system without being given visibility into the wider network.

For example, a contractor may need access to a specific project management tool, but not internal file shares, development environments, or administrative systems. With ZTNA, that level of control is easier to apply and enforce.

3. Reduced risk of lateral movement or escalation

One of the main security concerns with VPNs is what happens after an attacker gets in. If VPN access places them inside the corporate network, they may be able to scan for systems, look for misconfigurations, or move through the network. This risk was highlighted in CVE-2024-21888, a vulnerability affecting IT software company Ivanti’s Connect Secure and Policy Secure services. The vulnerability allowed attackers to elevate privileges to administrator level, potentially giving them broad control over affected environments.

ZTNA helps limit this by keeping users and devices away from resources they do not need. Even if an account is compromised, the attacker’s access should be restricted to the specific applications allowed by policy.

4. Stronger device-based controls

ZTNA can use device posture as part of the access decision. That means access can depend on whether a device is managed, encrypted, patched, protected by endpoint security, or compliant with company policy.
This is especially useful for hybrid work, where users may connect from different locations and networks. Stolen credentials alone should not be enough to gain access if the device does not meet the required security standards.

5. Better fit for cloud and hybrid environments

VPNs were designed for a time when most applications lived inside the corporate network. Many organizations now use a mix of SaaS tools, cloud platforms, private applications, and legacy systems.

ZTNA is better suited to this distributed environment. It can provide secure access to applications wherever they are hosted, without forcing traffic through a central VPN gateway or exposing more of the network than necessary.

Are VPNs still viable?

For many remote access use cases, ZTNA offers stronger security controls than a traditional VPN. However, there are still many instances where VPNs have use.

Infrastructure teams, network engineers, and administrators often still need broad visibility across systems to maintain services, investigate issues, and manage internal infrastructure. Some older applications and protocols also depend on network-level connectivity. Replacing or modernizing them can be too expensive or disruptive in the short term.

Mixed environments are now the norm within organizations, with legacy systems sitting alongside cloud and SaaS tools, accessed through modern identity tools. In that kind of setup, a single remote access model will not always fit every use case.

A more practical approach is to treat VPNs and ZTNA as complementary technologies rather than direct replacements in every scenario. For example, organizations might use:

• ZTNA for standard employee access to internal applications, SaaS platforms, and cloud-hosted resources.
• VPNs for specific administrative tasks, infrastructure management, and legacy systems that still require network-level access.
• Additional controls such as MFA, device posture checks, privileged access management, and closer monitoring for higher-risk remote access workflows.

For most organizations, VPNs will still remain part of the stack for some time, especially in environments with complex legacy or operational requirements. But their role is likely to become narrower as more access moves toward zero trust models.

How Specops helps organizations align with zero trust principles

Organizations reviewing their remote access and identity security strategies should focus not only on connectivity, but also on how access is granted, monitored, and controlled across networks.

Specops Device Trust helps strengthen that process by bringing device trust into authentication decisions. Rather than relying solely on credentials and MFA prompts, it allows organizations to verify whether the device attempting to access corporate systems is trusted and compliant. That includes:

• Checking device posture during login and continuously validating compliance throughout active sessions through regular device scans. Where devices fall out of compliance, rapid self-service remediation means users can quickly fix issues without involving the IT team, with grace periods to reduce friction.
• Binding identities to specific, trusted devices, preventing account takeovers from attacker-controlled hardware. Coverage extends across Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, and Android, ensuring that every device, including BYOD and contractor devices, authenticates securely. This is especially useful in mixed environments where ZTNA and VPN access are deployed together.

If you’re looking to evolve your identity security strategy to bring zero trust into workforce access decisions, contact Specops today and speak to an expert.