Comparison · VPN vs. Zero Trust

Traditional VPN vs. Zero Trust for the Industry — Which one should you choose in 2026?

IPSec VPN and Zero Trust are not direct alternatives. One is an encrypted tunnel; the other is a security philosophy. Understanding the difference is critical to protecting your OT networks.

✓ Verdict: Zero Trust recommended for new OT deployments

Comparison Chart — 13 Criteria

Traditional IPSec/OpenVPN vs. Zero Trust Architecture (Eziwan)

CriterionTraditional VPN (IPSec/OpenVPN)Zero Trust (Eziwan)
Role ModelImplicit trust in the networkNever trust, always verify
Security PerimeterNetwork Perimeter (Castle-and-Moat)Identity + device + context
AuthentificationPre-shared key / certificateMFA + certificate + context
Rights ManagementGlobal Access to the SubnetMicro-segmentation by Resource
Audit trailBasic login/logout logs.Granular logging of actions
Ease of deploymentComplex (firewall, PKI, NAT rules)Simple with a modern gateway (ZTP)
Legacy OT CompatibilityExcellent (transparent)Works well with edge enforcement
NIS2 CompliancePartial with offsetsNative Alignment
IEC 62443 CompliancePossible with configurationRecommended Architecture
Initial costHigh (concentrator, firewall)Moderate (cloud gateway)
ScalabilityLimited (concentrator nozzle)Horizontal, cloud-native
Risk of lateralizationHigh (full network access)Low (micro-segmentation)
Deployment time2–4 weeks (typical site)1–3 days (with ZTP gateway)

Detailed Analysis

1

The Trust Model: The Fundamental Difference

A traditional VPN is based on a perimeter model: once connected to the tunnel, the user has access to the entire network or a large subnet. This is the “castle-and-moat” model—difficult to penetrate from the outside, but once inside, lateral movement is virtually unrestricted. In an OT context, this means that a VPN technician can potentially access not only the PLC they are supposed to maintain, but also SCADA systems, HMIs, and other critical equipment. Zero Trust reverses this model: no connection is trusted by default, even from the internal network.

2

Access Management and OT Microsegmentation

Zero Trust microsegmentation allows for the definition of precise policies: “Technician X can access PLC Y from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on business days, only from an approved device.” This level of granularity is impossible with a traditional VPN. For OT environments, where a cybersecurity incident can have physical consequences (production shutdowns, accidents), this level of precision is critical. Eziwan implements this policy at the gateway level, transparently for legacy industrial equipment.

3

NIS2 and IEC 62443 Compliance: A Zero Trust Advantage

The NIS2 Directive requires operators of critical infrastructure and significant entities to implement cybersecurity risk management measures, including access control, logging, and business continuity. IEC 62443 (an industrial cybersecurity standard) recommends segmentation by zones and conduits. The Zero Trust architecture natively meets both of these standards. An IPSec VPN can meet these requirements, but requires additional configurations (external logging, complex firewall rules, certificate management) that increase complexity and the risk of error.

4

Compatibility with legacy OT equipment

This is the main weakness of a traditional VPN: a Siemens S7-300 PLC, a Schneider Magelis HMI, or a frequency inverter connected via Modbus TCP has no way to run a Zero Trust agent. The Eziwan solution addresses this issue through “edge enforcement”: the Zero Trust policy is enforced at the network gateway, and industrial devices simply see a standard local Ethernet network. This approach combines the universal compatibility of a VPN with the security of Zero Trust.

5

Costs and Operational Complexity

A traditional IPSec VPN deployment for an industrial site requires: a VPN concentrator (hardware or VM), a configured firewall, a PKI for certificates, user and key management, plus the maintenance of this entire infrastructure. Eziwan eliminates the gateway, the PKI, and much of the firewall configuration. Zero-touch provisioning (ZTP) allows a new gateway to be deployed in less than an hour, compared to days for a traditional VPN infrastructure.

When should you choose what?

Choose IPSec VPN if…
  • Very old OT equipment that cannot be updated
  • VPN infrastructure already in place and fully depreciated
  • Remote site with low remote access volume
  • A regulatory requirement specifically mandating IPSec
  • IT team with existing expertise in Cisco/Fortinet VPNs
Choose Zero Trust (Eziwan) if…
  • New OT deployment or greenfield deployment
  • NIS2 / IEC 62443 compliance required
  • Multiple technicians with different permissions
  • Multiple sites to monitor from a single dashboard
  • Desired Reduction in IT Infrastructure Costs
  • Frequent Access (Daily Remote Maintenance)

Real-World Incidents — How OT VPNs Are Compromised

These documented incidents illustrate why the traditional VPN model is insufficient for industrial networks

2021

Water Treatment Plant — Oldsmar, Florida

An attacker used TeamViewer access (remote access software without MFA) to attempt to increase the caustic soda concentration in drinking water to a dangerous level. The unsecured remote access was the direct vector for the attack.

Lesson: Without MFA and without logging remote access, it is impossible to distinguish a legitimate connection from an attack.

2022

European Energy Provider — Ransomware via VPN

The Industroyer2 group gained access to an energy provider’s OT network using VPN credentials stolen during a phishing attack on a subcontractor. The result: 3 days of production downtime and €4.2 million in losses.

Lesson: VPN credentials shared with a contractor are the single point of failure. A Zero Trust approach would have limited the contractor's access to the network perimeter.

2023

Pharmaceutical Manufacturer — Misconfigured IPsec

An incorrect NAT rule on an IPsec VPN concentrator accidentally exposed Siemens SCADA HMIs directly to the Internet. Indexed by Shodan, they were compromised in less than 48 hours. No incoming ports are open with Eziwan’s outbound-only architecture.

Lesson: The complexity of IPsec/NAT configurations leads to human errors. The "outbound-only" configuration eliminates this attack vector.

2024

Municipal Water Network — Default Credentials

Dragos 2024 Report: 60% of OT devices exposed to the Internet were still using default credentials. A municipal water network was compromised by a basic brute-force attack on an open VPN port—detected during an NIS2 compliance audit.

Lesson: Default credentials on outbound-only VPNs are the most commonly exploited vulnerability in the industry. An outbound-only architecture eliminates this attack vector.

Migration Guide: From IPSec/OpenVPN VPN to Zero Trust in 5 Steps

Migration without downtime — typical duration: 1 to 3 weeks

01

Audit of Existing Access Points

List all active remote access connections: IPSec VPN, OpenVPN, TeamViewer, and direct RDP. Identify the users, the devices they can access, and how often they use these connections. Duration: 1–2 days.

02

Parallel Deployment of the Eziwan Gateway

Install the Eziwan gateway on the OT network without affecting the existing VPN. Automatic ZTP configuration in less than an hour. The two systems coexist without conflict. Duration: 30 minutes.

03

Creating Zero Trust Access Profiles

Define the policies: which users can access which equipment, during which time periods, and from which devices. Import the list of existing users, if available. Duration: 1–2 days.

04

Gradual transition of users

Migrate users one by one to the Eziwan OpenVPN client. The old VPN will remain active as a fallback for 2 weeks. Verify critical access before shutting down the VPN. Duration: 1–2 weeks.

05

Closure of Inbound Ports

Once all users have been migrated and validated, close the incoming VPN ports on your firewall. Use an external Shodan scan to verify that nothing is exposed anymore. Duration: 30 minutes.

Expert Analysis

From Perimeter VPN to Zero Trust OT: Securing Remote Access Without Exposing the Site

A site-to-site VPN extends the network and assumes trust once the tunnel is established. The industrial Zero Trust model reverses this logic: no implicit trust, access verified by identity and by resource, and an outbound tunnel with no inbound port. Here is the regulatory framework and the target architecture.

Applicable Standards & References

NIST SP 800-207

Benchmark Zero Trust Architecture: continuous verification, least privilege, microsegmentation, and access decisions based on policy and session.

IEC 62443-3-3 / 4-2

OT security requirements: zones and channels, strong authentication, data encryption, and logging—the foundation of industrial remote access.

NIS2 Directive (EU 2022/2555)

Require access management, traceability, and incident notification for critical entities; remote access must be auditable from end to end.

ANSSI — Industrial Information Systems Security Guide

Recommends flow separation, the absence of an incoming port on the OT network, and strict IT/OT segmentation via a controlled gateway.

IPsec (RFC 4301) / OpenVPN

Proven encrypted tunnels. In a Zero Trust architecture, they become outbound channels to a broker, not permanent network bridges.

TLS 1.3 (RFC 8446) + mTLS

Mutual authentication using X.509 certificates: each device and each operator verifies its identity before any access is granted.

Recommended Architecture

OT Gateway
OUTBOUND tunnel
Cloud broker
mTLS meeting
Identity + MFA
per-session check
Access by Resource
least privilege
Audit
timestamped log

Reverse-tunnel model: The gateway initiates the connection to the broker (no incoming ports are open on the site). The operator can access only explicitly authorized devices for the duration of a logged session—not the entire subnet.

Key Technical Parameters

CriterionTraditional VPNZero Trust OT
Incoming port on the OTFrequently requiredNone (outgoing tunnel)
Access AreaEntire subnetUnit resource
ConfianceImplicit after the tunnelContinuously verified
AuthentificationShared key/IDIdentity + MFA + mTLS
TraceabilityRaw network logsAudit by Session/Resource
Revocation of AccessOverall (key)Granular, immediate

VPNs are not obsolete: they are becoming a building block for encrypted data transmission within a Zero Trust policy, rather than the security perimeter.

Field Data & Metrics

Machinery manufacturer — remote maintenance of 120 pieces of equipment at its customers' sites

Replacing heterogeneous VPN clients with a Zero Trust broker: no firewall ports opened on the client side; access is granted on a per-machine and per-technician basis.

0
Incoming porting enabled for customers
120
individually accessible machines
100 %
Timestamped and auditable sessions (NIS2)
< 1 min
Revocation of a technician's access
FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

Switch to a Zero Trust OT architecture with Eziwan

Industrial 4G/LTE gateway with OpenVPN/IPSec VPN and zero-inbound-port. Deploys in less than an hour; NIS2-compliant.