Compare · ZTNA

Skipr and zero trust network access

Zero trust network access replaced implicit network trust with per-connection verification. That is the right principle, applied at the connection layer. Autonomous execution moves the interesting decision one layer up, to the action itself.

What ZTNA does well

  • Removing implicit trust from the network
  • Per-connection verification of user, device and posture
  • Reducing exposed attack surface compared with flat network access
  • Consistent remote access without traditional VPN topology

Where it stops

  • Once the connection is allowed, the actions across it are not individually arbitrated
  • Policy is expressed in terms of resources and endpoints, not intents and data
  • Agent and tool invocations often ride existing allowed paths
  • Evidence records connections, not decisions about actions

What changes with autonomous execution

  • The risky unit is the operation an agent performs, not the tunnel it uses
  • Data-level scope matters as much as network reachability
  • Proof obligations describe behaviour, not connectivity

How Skipr complements it

  • ZTNA governs reachability; Skipr governs what happens once reachable
  • DataConnect applies residency and policy at query time, inside the allowed path
  • The decision and its scope are recorded as evidence at the point of enforcement

Side by side

DimensionZTNASkipr
LayerConnectionAction
Policy vocabularyUsers, devices, resourcesIntent, identity, context, data, scope
Autonomous actorsTreated as clientsTreated as governed principals
EvidenceConnection logsSigned decision and execution record

Questions

Do I still need ZTNA?
If it is how your principals reach systems, yes. Skipr does not replace network access control.
Is Skipr a network product?
No. It operates on actions and their context, not on packets and tunnels.
Where do the two meet?
A connection permitted by ZTNA still carries actions that Skipr arbitrates individually.

Continue

Other comparisons