For companies with 50 to 500 employees, the internet-facing VPN box has quietly become one of the most attractive targets in corporate networks. Attackers test it first, because a single flaw in that one device can open a path to everything behind it. The alternative, zero trust network access, closes that door for a modest monthly cost per user, and most firms in this size range should plan the switch now rather than later.
The difference between the two approaches is structural, not cosmetic. A traditional VPN authenticates a user once at login, then grants access to the entire office network as if that person were sitting at a desk inside the building. Zero trust network access, or ZTNA, works differently: it connects each person only to the specific applications they need, and it checks both the identity of the user and the health of their device on every single session, not just at sign-in. That distinction sits at the center of the federal zero trust architecture guidance published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which has pushed government agencies and, increasingly, private employers toward this model. Firms weighing the switch can also compare commercial options and pricing by looking at independent breakdowns, including resources like see the details, before committing to a vendor.
Why the VPN Box Became a Liability
The exposure problem is straightforward. A VPN appliance sits on the open internet, waiting for legitimate users to log in, and that same visibility makes it a target for scanning and exploitation. Cyber insurer Coalition reported that a majority of its 2024 ransomware claims traced back to a compromised VPN or firewall device. The federal cybersecurity agency CISA maintains a running catalog of vulnerabilities that attackers have already exploited in the wild, and dozens of entries on that list belong to VPN and firewall products from major vendors. A meaningful share of those flaws were used specifically in ransomware campaigns, often before a patch was even available. That timing gap is the core weakness: no amount of diligent patching protects a network from a vulnerability nobody has disclosed yet. When one widely used vendor's devices were compromised in early 2024, the federal response was not a patch instruction but an order to disconnect and rebuild every affected unit, a sign of how little trust security teams placed in incremental fixes.
What Zero Trust Changes, and What It Does Not
Moving to zero trust does not mean ripping out every VPN. A site-to-site VPN linking two offices a company already controls remains a sound, low-risk tool. Equipment on a factory floor that must be reachable from outside may also need to stay off the open internet behind a VPN, provided that access requires strong multi-factor authentication such as a physical security key. A small transitional group can also remain on a patched, MFA-protected VPN for a short bridge period while their applications are migrated. Outside of those narrow cases, though, zero trust is the more defensible posture for office staff, managers, and field personnel alike, because it eliminates the single point of failure that a VPN login page represents.
Cost, Timeline, and the Insurance Argument
Budget concerns are often the first objection, but the numbers favor the switch. Pricing generally runs a few dollars per user per month, with free tiers available for small pilot groups and paid options scaling modestly as organizations grow. Set against the average cost of a ransomware claim, which insurers have reported climbing well into six figures, the annual expense of zero trust for a mid-sized workforce is comparatively small. A realistic rollout takes about a quarter: enable multi-factor authentication on the existing VPN immediately, inventory who connects remotely and to which applications, migrate one team as a pilot, then move the rest in waves before retiring the VPN entirely. Vendors and contractors should be treated with the same scrutiny as employees, since unrestricted remote access for third parties has repeatedly been flagged by federal agencies as a significant network risk. Multi-factor authentication helps, but it is not a guarantee. Some vulnerabilities allow attackers to bypass login screens entirely, which is why zero trust's continuous verification, not a single login gate, has become the more durable standard.