Trupti Thakur
#CyberSecurity #InformationSecurity #ZeroTrust #IdentitySecurity #AIsecurity #DataSecurity #RiskManagement #ThirdPartyRisk #CyberRiskThe Expiring Trust Problem
In cybersecurity, trust is often granted far more easily than it is withdrawn. An employee is given access to a system. A third-party vendor is approved. A device is registered as trusted. An application receives API permissions. An AI agent is connected to sensitive organizational data. Once access is approved, that trust can remain in place for months—or even years. But in a constantly changing digital environment, should trust really be permanent? The Problem with “Once Trusted, Always Trusted” Traditional security models often treat trust as a one-time decision. Once an identity, device, application, or third party has been verified, it may continue to operate with the same permissions without frequent reassessment. The problem is that the environment around that trusted entity continues to change. An employee's responsibilities may evolve. A device may become vulnerable or compromised. A vendor's security posture may deteriorate. Credentials or API keys may be exposed. An application may receive new integrations. An AI agent may gradually gain access to more sensitive information. The original decision to trust may have been correct—but that does not guarantee that the same level of trust remains appropriate today. This creates what can be called the Expiring Trust Problem: the risk that organizations continue to rely on trust decisions long after the conditions that justified them have changed. Trust Should Be Dynamic, Not Permanent Modern cybersecurity increasingly requires organizations to move away from the concept of permanent trust. Trust should be treated as something that is continuously evaluated based on factors such as: Current identity and authentication status Device security posture User role and business requirements Access behaviour and activity patterns Application or system risk Third-party security posture Sensitivity of the information being accessed Changes in the operating environment This does not mean that every user or system must be manually re-approved every day. Instead, organizations should establish mechanisms that allow trust and access to be reviewed, reduced, suspended, or renewed when risk conditions change. Where Expiring Trust Matters Most The concept of trust with a lifespan is particularly important in several areas. Identity and Access Management Users should not retain access simply because they were granted it in the past. Access rights must be reviewed regularly, particularly for privileged accounts, temporary users, contractors, and employees whose responsibilities have changed. Third-Party and Vendor Relationships A vendor approved two years ago may not have the same security posture today. Organizations should periodically reassess critical suppliers and third parties rather than treating the initial assessment as permanent assurance. Devices and Endpoints A trusted device today may become vulnerable tomorrow due to missing patches, malware, configuration changes, or outdated software. Device trust should therefore depend on its current security posture. Applications and APIs Long-lived API keys, service accounts, and application permissions can quietly become significant security risks. Access that was appropriate for one business requirement may become excessive as systems evolve. AI Agents and Autonomous Systems This challenge is becoming even more significant with AI. AI assistants and autonomous agents are increasingly being connected to emails, documents, databases, cloud platforms, and business applications. As these systems gain more access and capabilities, organizations must regularly ask an important question: Does this AI system still need everything it was originally trusted to access? From “Trust Once” to “Trust Continuously” The future of cybersecurity should not be about eliminating trust. It should be about making trust more intelligent. Organizations need to move from: Trust Once → Trust Continuously This means introducing principles such as time-bound access, periodic access reviews, continuous authentication, just-in-time privileged access, automated credential rotation, vendor reassessments, and continuous monitoring of unusual activity. Trust should also have clear triggers for re-evaluation. A change in role, device risk level, security incident, vendor breach, or unusual behaviour should automatically prompt organizations to reconsider the level of access being granted. The Bigger Security Lesson Cybersecurity is often focused on preventing unauthorized access. But many modern security incidents involve access that was technically authorized. The real question is not always: “Was this entity authorized?” It is increasingly: “Should this entity still be trusted with this level of access?” In a digital ecosystem where identities, systems, vendors, devices, applications, and AI agents are constantly changing, trust cannot remain static. Digital trust should have a lifecycle. It should be granted when justified, continuously evaluated, reduced when necessary, and removed when it is no longer required. The organizations that recognize this shift will be better prepared for the next generation of cybersecurity risks. Because in modern cybersecurity, trust is not something you grant forever—it is something that must be continuously earned.
