Failure Pattern
Compliance controls validate configuration instead of runtime identity verification. Attackers exploit this gap.
What We See in the Field
Organizations pass audits with strong compliance scores. Later, a breach occurs because systems trusted identity-blind traffic. Compliance controls did not enforce security.
Underlying Causes
Focus on paperwork, not continuous validation
Outdated trust assumptions in standards
No runtime identity enforcement
Tools verifying configuration rather than behavior
Gaps between documentation and actual infrastructure state
Trust-Native Network Resolution
DTL enforces identity continuously at runtime. Compliance becomes a natural byproduct of strong trust architecture rather than a separate process.
Broken Trust Assumption
The attacks that exposed this failure pattern were not stealthy break-ins. They were trusted operations.
During incidents such as SolarWinds, Capital One, and Okta, malicious activity was carried out using valid identities and approved execution paths. Certificates were valid. Tokens were accepted. Sessions were authenticated. From the system’s point of view, nothing appeared wrong.
This is the risk of trust inferred from credentials, location, or prior authentication.