CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Information and Cyber SecurityAccess Control and TrustPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

Zero trust: Never trust, always verify

Open access
Wylde, Allison·2021·2021 International Conference on Cyber Situational Awareness, Data Analytics and Assessment (CyberSA)
DOI 10.1109/cybersa52016.2021.9478244
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This short paper argues that current conceptions in trust formation scholarship miss the context of zero trust, a practice growing in importance in cyber security. The contribution of this paper presents a novel approach to help conceptualize and operationalize zero trust and a call for a research agenda. Further work will expand this model and explore the implications of zero trust in future digital systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cybersa52016.2021.9478244

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Role-based access controls, separation of duties, and zero-trust principles can further mitigate insider risks and unauthorized lateral movement between agents.

    “Role-based access controls, separation of duties, and zero-trust principles can further mitigate insider risks and unauthorized lateral movement between agents (Wylde, 2021;Greitzer & Frincke, 2010).”

    From Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Wylde, 2021

    Section II, “Zero Trust” (page not provided), says zero-trust architecture removes inherent network trust and uses authentication and authorization to address lateral movement. It does not specifically discuss role-based access controls, separation of duties, insider risks, or movement between agents, so those parts of the sentence are not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. D. M. Rousseau, S. B. Sitkin, D. S. Burt and C. Camerer, "Not so different after all: A cross discipline view of trust," Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), pp.393-404, 1998.
  2. R. Mayer, J. Davis and F. Schoorman, "An integrative model of organizational trust". Academy of Management Review, 20(3), pp. 709- 734, 1995.
  3. IEEE Standards Association, "A call to action for businesses using AI," Jan/2021. [online]. Available: https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieeestandards/standards/web/do cuments/other/ead/ead-for-business.pdf
  4. C. Onwubiko, "CyberOps: Situational Awareness in Cybersecurity Operations." International Journal on Cyber Situational Awareness, 5(1), pp.82-107, 2020.
  5. S. Goldwasser, S. Micali and C. Rackoff, "The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems", Siam Journal of Computing, 18(1), pp.186-208, 1989.
  6. A. C-C. Yao, "How to generate and exchange secrets," 1986 IEEE 27th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (SFCS 1986), 1986, pp.162-167.
  7. J. Kuriakose, P.S. Sisodia, Armuth, V, D. K. Shah and S. More, "Comparative study of diverse zero-knowledge argument systems," 2016 International Conference on Data Mining and Advance Computing (SAPIENCE), 2016, pp.284-293, doi:10/1109/SPAIENCE. 2016.7684134.
  8. M. Jawurek, F. Kerschbaum and C. Orlandi, "Zero knowledge using garbled circuits or how to prove non algebraic statements efficiently," CCS 13, Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer and Communications Security, (ACM SIGSAC), 2013, pp.955-966, doi:10.1145/2508859.2516662. · DOI
  9. D. Eidle, S. Y. Ni, C. DeCaustis and A. Sager, "Autonomic security for zero trust networks," 2017 IEEE 8th Annual Ubiquitous Computing Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON), 2017, pp.288-293, doi: 10.1109/UECON.2017.8249053. · DOI
  10. T. Dimitrakos et al., "Trust aware continuous authorization for zero trust in consumer internet of things," IEEE 19th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom), 2020, pp.1081-1812, doi:10.1109/TrustCom50675.2020.000247. · DOI
  11. A. P. Patil, G. Karkal, J. Wadhwa, M. Sawood and K. Dhanush Reddy, "Design and implememtation of a consensus algorithm to build zero trust model," 2020, IEEE 17th India council International Conference (INDICON), 2020, pp.1-5, doi:10.1109/INDICON49873.2020.9342207. · DOI
  12. A. Fulmer and M. Gelfand, "At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels," Journal of Management, 38(4), pp.1167-1230, 2012.
  13. G. Möllering, "Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity," Bingley, UK: Emerald Group, 2006.
  14. V. Patent and R. Searle, "Qualitative meta-analysis of propensity to trust measurement," Journal of Trust Research, 9(2), pp.136-163, 2019.
  15. R. J. Lewicki, E. C. Tomlinson and N. Gillespie, "Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence and future directions," Journal of Management, 32(6), pp. 991-1002, 2006.
  16. R. J. Lewicki, D. McAllister and R. Bies, "Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities," Academy of Management Review, 23(3), pp. 438-458, 1998.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wylde, A.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Wylde, Allison
ORCID
Wylde, Allison
Venue
2021 International Conference on Cyber Situational Awareness, Data Analytics and Assessment (CyberSA)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2021-06-14
Pages
1-4
DOI
10.1109/cybersa52016.2021.9478244
OpenAlex
W3182966328
Cited by
62
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 1
FWCI
9.74
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Conference on Cyber Situational Awareness, Data Analytics and Assessment (CyberSA) (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Cardiff University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
zero-trust architecture, trust formation, cybersecurity, verification, trust model, digital systems, research agenda

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review