ZTNA vs VPN: Migration Strategy for IT Teams
If you are comparing ZTNA vs VPN, you are usually trying to solve the same core problem: how to give people fast remote access without expanding your attack surface. A traditional VPN can be the right tool in specific cases, but modern hybrid work and cloud adoption have changed the risk model. Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) shifts remote access from a network tunnel to per-request, identity-aware access to the apps and resources a user actually needs.[1]
Who this guide is for
- IT leaders planning a VPN refresh or a VPN replacement project
- Teams standardizing access for remote staff, contractors, and vendors
- Organizations tightening security posture after an audit, incident, or insurance questionnaire
Want a VPN-to-ZTNA migration plan that will not break productivity?
MSP Corp helps Canadian IT teams assess risk, map apps, design policies, and roll out ZTNA in controlled phases. Start with a cybersecurity assessment and a practical migration roadmap.
ZTNA vs VPN in plain terms
A VPN creates an encrypted tunnel from a user device to your network (usually to a VPN gateway), making the remote device feel “on network” for access purposes.[9] This is useful, but it can also broaden the blast radius when a device is compromised because the user is effectively connected to the internal environment.
ZTNA (Zero Trust Network Access) is part of a broader Zero Trust architecture that assumes no implicit trust based on network location. Instead, access decisions are enforced continuously based on identity, device posture, and policy, and are scoped to the specific application or resource requested.[1] Canada’s Centre for Cyber Security frames Zero Trust as a modern model to secure remote workers and hybrid cloud environments in today’s threat landscape.[2]
Quick decision filter
- If users need access to a few specific apps (ERP, RDP to a jump host, file shares, line-of-business web apps), ZTNA is often a better fit.
- If you need full network-layer connectivity for legacy protocols or specialized integrations, a hardened VPN may still be required for a subset of users.
- If contractors and vendors are a common risk, ZTNA’s per-app access model usually reduces exposure and simplifies policy enforcement.
Why IT teams are rethinking VPN as the default
VPNs are not inherently “bad”, but they are high-value targets. CISA and NSA have repeatedly highlighted that remote-access VPN servers are entry points into protected networks, making them attractive to adversaries.[4] The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security also maintains deployment guidance for VPN technologies and links to hardening recommendations for remote access VPNs.[3]
Common VPN pain points that show up in audits and incidents
- Broad access by design: many VPN configurations provide network-level reachability that outpaces the user’s actual job needs.
- Device uncertainty: unmanaged endpoints, outdated clients, and mixed BYOD environments complicate enforcement.
- Concentrated risk: the VPN concentrator is a critical choke point for availability and a priority target for exploitation.
- Visibility gaps: logs exist, but app-level context and user journey visibility can be harder to correlate without mature telemetry.
A practical takeaway is that VPN is often a transport solution, while ZTNA is a policy and enforcement model. If your security program is moving toward “verify explicitly, use least privilege, assume breach”, ZTNA aligns more naturally with that operating model.[6]
How ZTNA actually works
In most ZTNA implementations, a user does not get a blanket network tunnel. Instead, a policy engine evaluates each request and only allows access to the specific destination the policy permits. This model is consistent with the broader Zero Trust goal of minimizing uncertainty in per-request access decisions in a network assumed to be compromised.[7]
A typical access flow
- User requests an app (web app, RDP, SSH, file service, or private SaaS).
- Identity is verified (SSO, MFA, risk signals, conditional access conditions).
- Device posture is checked (managed device, compliance, encryption, EDR presence, OS patch level, certificate).
- Policy decision happens (role, location, risk score, time, sensitivity of app, data classification).
- Connection is brokered to that app only, with continuous re-evaluation when signals change.
Real-world benefit
When the policy is app-scoped, compromised credentials are less likely to turn into broad lateral movement because access does not automatically grant visibility or reachability to the rest of the network.
Comparison: ZTNA vs VPN for operations, security, and user experience
| Category | VPN | ZTNA |
|---|---|---|
| Access model | Network tunnel to internal environment; often broad by default[9] | Per-app or per-resource access; policy-driven and continuously evaluated[1] |
| Least privilege | Requires strong segmentation and careful ACL design to approximate least privilege | Designed for least privilege and explicit verification at the access layer[6] |
| Attack surface | VPN gateway is a high-value entry point and availability dependency[4] | Access is brokered and can reduce network exposure by limiting what is reachable |
| Hybrid work fit | Works, but user experience depends on split tunneling, routing, and client stability | Often improves experience by making access app-centric and location-agnostic |
| Logging and telemetry | Centralized connection logs; app-level attribution can be harder without additional tooling | Typically richer app-level access logs, identity signals, and policy context |
| Best use cases | Legacy protocols, full network connectivity needs, highly specialized systems | Private apps, vendor access, contractor access, modern identity-first environments |
You do not have to migrate everything at once. Many organizations run a hybrid model for a period, using ZTNA for most access and a hardened VPN only for the legacy exceptions.
A phased VPN to ZTNA migration strategy
Successful migrations are less about a single product choice and more about sequencing. The goal is to reduce risk while keeping the business moving. Use the phases below as a playbook, then adapt based on your network topology, identity maturity, and app stack.
Phase 1: Discover and baseline (week 0 to 2)
- Inventory users and access types: employees, contractors, vendors, service accounts, emergency access.
- Inventory apps behind the VPN: RDP, file shares, internal web apps, admin tools, databases, OT environments (if relevant).
- Capture traffic patterns: what is used daily vs rarely, what is business critical, and what is high risk.
- Baseline identity hygiene: MFA coverage, privileged roles, stale accounts, conditional access gaps.
Phase 2: Define policy outcomes (week 2 to 4)
- Start with “who, what, when, from where”: role, app, time, location, risk signals.
- Write access rules per app (not per subnet): least privilege is easier when you design around business workflows.
- Choose enforcement signals: managed device, compliant device, certificate-based auth, EDR required, geo restrictions.
Phase 3: Pilot ZTNA for low-risk, high-volume apps (week 4 to 8)
- Pick 2 to 4 apps that are used frequently but are not the most complex (internal web apps, RDP to a jump host, ticketing admin tools).
- Run a controlled pilot group (IT and power users first) and measure friction: login time, failure rates, support tickets.
- Keep VPN as a fallback during pilot, but use it as an exception path, not the default.
Phase 4: Expand coverage and retire VPN paths (week 8 to 16)
- Move contractor and vendor access early: this often delivers an immediate risk reduction because access becomes app-scoped.
- Enforce stronger conditions as you stabilize: device compliance, managed endpoints, and conditional access policies.
- Reduce VPN entitlements gradually: fewer groups, fewer routes, fewer reachable subnets, shorter session lifetimes.
Phase 5: Decommission and harden what remains (ongoing)
- Retire unused VPN accounts and routes.
- Harden the residual VPN for the true exceptions using current best practices and ongoing patching discipline.[4]
- Document the new control model for audits, insurance, and change control.
Tip for fewer surprises
Treat “VPN removal” as an outcome, not a milestone. The milestone is policy equivalence: users can do their job, with less risk, and with better visibility into who accessed what.
Architecture patterns that work (and how to choose)
The most common modern procurement pattern is to buy ZTNA as part of a broader cloud-delivered security stack. Gartner’s SASE definition, for example, includes ZTNA as a core capability alongside other network and security services.[8] In the market, you will see offerings positioned as ZTNA, SSE, or SASE.
Pattern A: Identity-centric ZTNA for private apps
If your identity platform is mature, an identity-centric ZTNA approach can be a clean VPN replacement for private apps. Microsoft describes identity-centric ZTNA as a way to replace legacy VPN by granting granular access to private resources without exposing the full network.[5]
Pattern B: ZTNA as part of SSE or SASE
If your organization also needs secure web gateway, cloud app controls, and centralized threat protection, an SSE or SASE approach can consolidate tooling. The key is to map capabilities to outcomes: app access, data protection, visibility, and response workflows.
Pattern C: ZTNA in front of a segmented network
ZTNA is strongest when paired with good internal segmentation and strong identity controls. Think of ZTNA as the “front door” and segmentation as the “internal hallways”. When both are aligned, lateral movement becomes harder and detection becomes easier.
If you want help choosing the right architecture for your environment, start with MSP Corp’s Cybersecurity Services hub, or pair the project with Network Services and Managed Infrastructure for end-to-end visibility.
Policy blueprint: what to define before you flip the switch
ZTNA success depends on policy quality. A simple way to keep scope under control is to define policies in layers: identity, device, application, and data sensitivity. This mirrors the way many Zero Trust maturity models break down capabilities across pillars.[7]
Identity policies (baseline)
- Enforce MFA for all remote access, then improve it with conditional access based on risk and context.
- Separate admin identities from user identities; protect privileged roles with stronger controls.
- Require modern authentication and block legacy auth paths where possible.
If your roadmap includes Microsoft identity controls, you may find these MSP Corp resources useful: MFA Isn’t Enough: How to Add Conditional Access the Right Way and the Microsoft 365 Administration Checklist.
Device policies (baseline)
- Require a managed and compliant device for high-risk apps (finance, HR, admin tools).
- Use posture checks: disk encryption, EDR present, current OS, secure boot where applicable.
- Define an exception path for break-glass scenarios and document its approvals.
Application policies (baseline)
- Group apps by sensitivity and workflow: “daily”, “admin”, “finance”, “vendor-only”, “rare”.
- Prefer access to a hardened jump host for administrative protocols instead of direct access to many servers.
- Make session durations match risk (shorter for admin and vendor access).
Data and response policies (baseline)
- Define what should trigger an incident: impossible travel, repeated denied attempts, risky device posture.
- Make sure your response plan is current and tested (see the Incident Response Plan Template (for SMBs)).
- Confirm coverage for monitoring and escalation, especially outside business hours (see What’s Included in 24/7 IT Support (and What Isn’t)).
Change management: keep the rollout smooth
If users experience ZTNA as “security got stricter and slower”, adoption will stall. The rollout should feel like a productivity upgrade: fewer connection issues, fewer full-tunnel slowdowns, and faster access to the apps people actually use.
Rollout tactics that reduce tickets
- Start with a small pilot and publish the success metrics (login time, fewer VPN disconnects, better performance).
- Communicate the why: least privilege and explicit verification protects the business and users.[6]
- Have a defined fallback during the pilot window, then remove it intentionally as confidence grows.
- Align to governance for approvals and exceptions (see AI Governance for IT Teams: RACI, Approvals, and Change Control).
If part of your driver is vendor performance or a messy transition history, this MSP Corp guide can help: When to Switch MSPs: 12 Red Flags and a Transition Checklist.
Get a clear migration roadmap in 2 weeks
We will map the apps behind your VPN, define least-privilege access policies, and produce a phased plan for ZTNA rollout, including legacy exceptions and a decommission sequence.
Common pitfalls (and how to avoid them)
Pitfall 1: Treating ZTNA as a simple VPN swap
A tool swap without policy design often recreates the VPN problem in a new interface. If your access model is still broad, you will not get the full security benefit.
Pitfall 2: Weak identity foundations
ZTNA is identity-driven. If MFA coverage is inconsistent or privileged roles are not tightly controlled, you are building on sand. Start with conditional access and role hygiene, then migrate the apps.
Pitfall 3: Unmanaged endpoints in high-risk workflows
If the device is not known, you cannot trust the session. Define clear rules for BYOD (or remove it for sensitive apps), and phase users toward managed endpoints.
Pitfall 4: Not updating operations and incident response
ZTNA changes where signals live and how sessions are established. Ensure your SOC workflow, alerting, and on-call escalation are updated. If you are expanding Microsoft security capabilities, this checklist helps align data, security, and licensing: Microsoft 365 Copilot Readiness Checklist (Data, Security, Licensing).
What to do if you must keep a VPN (for now)
In many environments, a small set of legacy access needs remains. If you must keep a VPN, treat it as a hardened exception layer and minimize exposure. CISA and NSA guidance for selecting and hardening remote access VPN solutions is a strong baseline for configuration discipline and ongoing maintenance.[4]
VPN minimization checklist
- Reduce who can connect (tight groups, least privilege, time-bound access for vendors)
- Reduce what can be reached (route restrictions, segmentation, jump hosts)
- Reduce how long sessions last (shorter lifetimes for admin and vendor use)
- Increase monitoring and patch cadence for the VPN concentrator and supporting identity controls
FAQ
Is ZTNA more secure than a VPN?
ZTNA can be more secure for many use cases because it is designed to enforce per-request, identity-aware, least-privilege access rather than broad network reachability.[1] That said, security depends on implementation: identity controls, device posture enforcement, and logging maturity matter.
Do we have to replace our VPN completely?
Not necessarily. Many teams adopt a hybrid approach: move the majority of access to ZTNA and keep a hardened VPN for legacy exceptions. The goal is to steadily reduce VPN entitlements, reachable routes, and session lifetimes while expanding app-scoped access.
How long does a VPN-to-ZTNA migration take?
For many mid-market environments, an initial pilot can be done in 4 to 8 weeks, with broader rollout over the following 2 to 4 months. Timelines vary based on identity maturity, device management, and how many legacy protocols are in scope.
What is the relationship between ZTNA, SSE, and SASE?
ZTNA is a capability that is often delivered as part of SSE or SASE product families. Gartner’s SASE definition includes ZTNA alongside other cloud-delivered network and security functions.[8]
What should we do first: identity hardening or app migration?
Start with identity hardening in parallel with app discovery. Zero Trust emphasizes explicit verification and least privilege, so MFA coverage, privileged role hygiene, and conditional access baselines are foundational.[6]
Ready to reduce remote access risk without slowing people down?
If your VPN is becoming a bottleneck or a recurring audit finding, MSP Corp can help you modernize access with ZTNA, stronger identity controls, and 24/7 support coverage.
References
- NIST SP 800-207, Zero Trust Architecture. https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/207/final
- Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, Zero Trust security model (ITSAP.10.008). https://www.cyber.gc.ca/en/guidance/zero-trust-security-model-itsap10008
- Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, Virtual private networks (ITSAP.80.101). https://www.cyber.gc.ca/en/guidance/virtual-private-networks-itsap80101
- CISA and NSA, Selecting and Hardening Remote Access VPN Solutions (alert and guidance). https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2021/09/28/cisa-and-nsa-release-guidance-selecting-and-hardening-vpns
- Microsoft, Replace your legacy VPN with an identity-centric ZTNA. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/microsoft-entra-blog/replace-your-legacy-vpn-with-an-identity-centric-ztna/4395973
- Microsoft Learn, Zero Trust principles: verify explicitly, use least privilege, assume breach. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/entra/identity-platform/zero-trust-for-developers
- CISA, Zero Trust Maturity Model. https://www.cisa.gov/zero-trust-maturity-model
- Gartner, Definition of Secure Access Service Edge (SASE). https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/glossary/secure-access-service-edge-sase
- NIST SP 800-77 Rev. 1, Guide to IPsec VPNs. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-77r1.pdf