Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Main Article Content

Abstract

The importance of identity-centric controls for securing national connectivity infrastructure in cloud-native telecom environments is increasingly recognized. Modern telecom control planes are built on software-defined and service-based architectures. Identities are both a trust boundary and a significant attack surface. This study evaluates the effects of identity compromises on security and operational behavior in a simulated cloud-native telecom control plane. In this paper, we describe a scenario-based experimental approach to assessing three security postures: (i) perimeter-based, (ii) Zero Trust-based, and (iii) Zero Trust-based with basic identity-resilience mechanisms. Our findings demonstrate that perimeter-based security was bypassed in all evaluated attack scenarios and that it provided broad control-plane reachability. Zero Trust aligned security reduced attack success to less than 15% and limited lateral propagation. The attack success rate dropped to zero across all tested scenarios when identity resilience mechanisms were added. The average blast radius reduced from more than five services under perimeter security to near zero with identity-resilient Zero Trust. The measured request-success rate during attack and containment windows decreased from 100% under the perimeter baseline to 0% under the Zero Trust and identity-resilient configurations for unauthorized or quarantined requests. This decrease was primarily due to intentional policy-based denial rather than infrastructure failure. The results in the simulated environment show that identity resilience can enhance Zero Trust by reducing the persistence of compromised identities. The results also show the security-availability trade-offs, which must be further validated in telecom environments at production scale.    

Keywords

Identity resilience Zero Trust security Telecom control plane National connectivity infrastructure

Article Details

How to Cite
Kumara, S. ., & Shah, M. . (2026). Securing national connectivity infrastructure through identity resilience: implications for zero trust–aligned telecom security. Future Technology, 5(3), 276–286. Retrieved from https://fupubco.com/futech/article/view/973
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Bookmark and Share

References

  1. P. Scalise, M. Boeding, M. Hempel, H. Sharif, J. Delloiacovo, and J. Reed, “A systematic survey on 5G and 6G security considerations, challenges, trends, and research areas,” Future Internet, vol. 16, no. 3, p. 67, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi16030067
  2. Q. Tang, O. Ermis, C. D. Nguyen, A. De Oliveira, and A. Hirtzig, “A systematic analysis of 5G networks with a focus on 5G core security,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 18298–18319, 2022. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3151000
  3. R. Patil, Z. Tian, M. Gurusamy, and J. McCloud, “5G core network control plane: Network security challenges and solution requirements,” Computer Communications, vol. 229, p. 107982, 2025. 10.1016/j.comcom.2024.107982
  4. N. F. Syed, S. W. Shah, A. Shaghaghi, A. Anwar, Z. Baig, and R. Doss, “Zero trust architecture (ZTA): A comprehensive survey,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 57143–57179, 2022. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3174679
  5. Y. Ren, Z. Wang, P. K. Sharma, F. Alqahtani, A. Tolba, and J. Wang, “Zero trust networks: Evolution and application from concept to practice,” Computers, Materials & Continua, vol. 82, no. 2, 2025. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2025.059170
  6. M. L. Gambo and A. Almulhem, “Zero trust architecture: A systematic literature review,” Journal of Network and Systems Management, vol. 34, no. 1, p. 25, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10922-025-09998-x
  7. S. Mushtaq, M. Mohsin, and M. M. Mushtaq, “A systematic literature review on the implementation and challenges of zero trust architecture across domains,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 19, p. 6118, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25196118
  8. N. Nahar, K. Andersson, O. Schelén, and S. Saguna, “A survey on zero trust architecture: Applications and challenges of 6G networks,” IEEE Access, 2024. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3425350
  9. H. Kang, G. Liu, Q. Wang, L. Meng, and J. Liu, “Theory and application of zero trust security: A brief survey,” Entropy, vol. 25, no. 12, p. 1595, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/e25121595
  10. P. Scalise, M. Hempel, and H. Sharif, “A survey of 5G core network user identity protections, concerns, and proposed enhancements for future 6G technologies,” Future Internet, vol. 17, no. 4, p. 142, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi17040142
  11. F. Dolente, R. G. Garroppo, and M. Pagano, “A vulnerability assessment of open-source implementations of fifth-generation core network functions,” Future Internet, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 1, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi16010001
  12. F. F. Ashrif and R. Ahmad, “A secure and efficient hybrid approach for 5G-AKA in blockchain smart contracts,” Computer Networks, p. 111761, 2025. 10.1016/j.comnet.2025.111761
  13. Z. Benfarhi, O. Gemikonakli, and M. A. Mobarhan, “Evaluation of authentication and key agreement approaches of 5G networks,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Artificial Intelligence and Applied Mathematics in Engineering, Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, Nov. 2023, pp. 194–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56322-5_15
  14. H. U. Adoga and D. P. Pezaros, “Network function virtualization and service function chaining frameworks: A comprehensive review of requirements, objectives, implementations, and open research challenges,” Future Internet, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 59, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi14020059
  15. L. F. Gonzalez, I. Vidal, F. Valera, R. Martin, and D. Artalejo, “A link-layer virtual networking solution for cloud-native network function virtualisation ecosystems: L2S-M,” Future Internet, vol. 15, no. 8, p. 274, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi15080274
  16. Sadiq, H. J. Syed, A. A. Ansari, A. O. Ibrahim, M. Alohaly, and M. Elsadig, “Detection of denial of service attack in cloud-based Kubernetes using eBPF,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 8, p. 4700, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13084700
  17. S. Rose, O. Borchert, S. Mitchell, and S. Connelly, “Zero trust architecture,” NIST Special Publication, vol. 800, no. 207, pp. 1–52, 2020. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-207
  18. K. Alnaim, “Adaptive zero trust policy management framework in 5G networks,” Mathematics, vol. 13, no. 9, p. 1501, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13091501
  19. J. Yao, Z. Han, M. Sohail, and L. Wang, “A robust security architecture for SDN-based 5G networks,” Future Internet, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 85, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi11040085
  20. M. Hashem Eiza, B. Akwirry, A. Raschella, M. Mackay, and M. K. Maheshwari, “A hybrid zero trust deployment model for securing O-RAN architecture in 6G networks,” Future Internet, vol. 17, no. 8, p. 372, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi17080372
  21. M. El-Hajj, “Secure and trustworthy open radio access network (O-RAN) optimization: A zero-trust and federated learning framework for 6G networks,” Future Internet, vol. 17, no. 6, p. 233, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi17060233
  22. W. Azariah, F. A. Bimo, C. W. Lin, R. G. Cheng, N. Nikaein, and R. Jana, “A survey on open radio access networks: Challenges, research directions, and open source approaches,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 3, p. 1038, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24031038
  23. M. K. Motalleb, C. Benzaid, T. Taleb, M. Katz, V. Shah-Mansouri, and J. Kim, “Towards secure intelligent O-RAN architecture: Vulnerabilities, threats and promising technical solutions using LLMs,” Digital Communications and Networks, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcan.2025.05.001
  24. Z. Allaw, O. Zein, and A. M. Ahmad, “Cross-layer security for 5G/6G network slices: An SDN, NFV, and AI-based hybrid framework,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 11, p. 3335, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25113335