A Systematic Literature Review on the Implementation and Challenges of Zero Trust Architecture Across Domains
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) model has emerged as a foundational cybersecurity paradigm that eliminates implicit trust and enforces continuous verification across users, devices, and networks. This study presents a systematic literature review of 74 peer-reviewed articles published between 2016 and 2025, spanning domains such as cloud computing (24 studies), Internet of Things (11), healthcare (7), enterprise and remote work systems (6), industrial and supply chain networks (5), mobile networks (5), artificial intelligence and machine learning (5), blockchain (4), big data and edge computing (3), and other emerging contexts (4). The analysis shows that authentication, authorization, and access control are the most consistently implemented ZTA components, whereas auditing, orchestration, and environmental perception remain underexplored. Across domains, the main challenges include scalability limitations, insufficient lightweight cryptographic solutions for resource-constrained systems, weak orchestration mechanisms, and limited alignment with regulatory frameworks such as GDPR and HIPAA. Cross-domain comparisons reveal that cloud and enterprise systems demonstrate relatively mature implementations, while IoT, blockchain, and big data deployments face persistent performance and compliance barriers. Overall, the findings highlight both the progress and the gaps in ZTA adoption, underscoring the need for lightweight cryptography, context-aware trust engines, automated orchestration, and regulatory integration. This review provides a roadmap for advancing ZTA research and practice, offering implications for researchers, industry practitioners, and policymakers seeking to enhance cybersecurity resilience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it