Zero-Trust Security Model
The Zero Trust security model is a strategic cybersecurity approach that eliminates implicit trust and requires continuous verification of every user, device, workload, and request attempting to access resources, regardless of network location. It is rooted in NIST SP 800-207, formalized for federal agencies by the CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model and the DoD Zero Trust Reference Architecture, and operationalized by NSA, NCSC, and industry guidance. This topic indexes the canonical specifications, guidance documents, advocacy organizations, and reference data schemas that describe the Zero Trust security model and its pillars (Identity, Devices, Networks, Applications & Workloads, Data, Visibility & Analytics, Automation & Orchestration).
Limited machine-readable signal and partial portal coverage — documentation a human can read, but little a machine or agent can consume without scraping.
API Evangelist profiles Zero-Trust Security Model the way a machine reads it — 30 machine-readable artifacts across 5 APIs, pulled from the provider's own public surface and indexed so a developer, an analyst, or an AI agent can evaluate it against every other provider on the network.
Every provider in the network is reduced to the same set of machine-readable artifacts — OpenAPI contracts, event specifications, GraphQL schemas, runnable collections, pricing and rate-limit signals, security posture, OAuth scopes, and the agent surfaces (MCP servers and skills) that let software drive the API on its own. We profile them because the interface is the part of a company you can actually inspect: it is a truer signal of what a provider does than any marketing page. From those artifacts we compute the Kin Score — Zero-Trust Security Model scores 40.4/100 (thin), with a separate agent-readiness read of 14/100 (human only). The full breakdown is below, followed by every artifact we hold — each card links through to its machine-readable definition on apis.io.
Kin Score
This is the API Evangelist rating — a single, repeatable read computed from the artifacts on this page. Green fill is points earned; the red track is points possible, so every bar shows earned-versus-possible at a glance.
Kin Score
How this is scored →scored 2026-07-27 · rubric v0.5
How we profile Zero-Trust Security Model
Each block below is one kind of artifact we hold for Zero-Trust Security Model. For each we say what it is and why it earns a place in the profile, then list every one we've indexed — capped at two rows, scroll within the panel for the rest.
APIs 5
Each API is captured as its own OpenAPI definition — every operation, parameter, and response. This is the single most useful machine-readable description of what an API does, and it's what lets us score, lint, mock, and generate against it without asking the provider for anything.
Individual APIs this provider publishes, each with its own machine-readable definition.
NIST SP 800-207 Zero Trust Architecture
The foundational specification of the Zero Trust security model. Defines the seven tenets, the PDP/PEP/PA logical components, and the deployment variants (enhanced identity gove...
CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model
CISA's Zero Trust Maturity Model defines four maturity levels (Traditional, Initial, Advanced, Optimal) across five pillars (Identity, Devices, Networks, Applications & Workload...
DoD Zero Trust Reference Architecture
The Department of Defense Zero Trust Reference Architecture defines the seven DoD Zero Trust pillars (User, Device, Application & Workload, Data, Network & Environment, Automati...
NSA Zero Trust Guidance
A series of NSA Cybersecurity Information Sheets providing pillar-by- pillar guidance for implementing Zero Trust, including the Network and Environment, User, Device, Applicati...
UK NCSC Zero Trust Architecture Design Principles
The UK National Cyber Security Centre's eight Zero Trust design principles, providing the British government's view of Zero Trust architecture for both public-sector and private...
Pricing Plans 1
Pricing is part of the interface. Machine-readable plans tell you what a tier costs and includes before you commit — one of the six things the Kin Score reads for commercial clarity.
Published pricing tiers and plan structures.
Rate Limits 1
Rate limits are the difference between a demo that works and a production integration that doesn't fall over. Publishing them is an operational-transparency signal — and a hard requirement for any agent that plans its own throughput.
Documented rate limits and quota policies.
Zero Trust Security Model Rate Limits
RATE LIMITSFinOps 1
Cost, billing, and metering signals let a buyer model the financial operations of an API before it's live. We profile them for the same reason we profile pricing: the money is part of the contract.
Cost, billing, and metering signals for API financial operations.
Features 8
The notable capabilities this provider advertises, captured as structured features so they can be searched and compared instead of read one landing page at a time.
Notable capabilities this provider offers.
Never Trust Always Verify
No user, device, or network is trusted by default; every access is verified.
Explicit Verification
Authentication and authorization happen for every request using all available signals.
Least Privilege Access
Users and workloads receive only the minimum permissions required for the task.
Assume Breach
The model is designed assuming attackers are already present in the environment.
Continuous Monitoring
All sessions and signals are continuously analyzed and policies re-evaluated.
Microsegmentation
Networks and workloads are segmented to limit blast radius after compromise.
Data-Centric Protection
Security controls follow the data, not the perimeter.
Identity as the Perimeter
User and workload identity replaces network location as the primary trust boundary.
Scroll within the panel for all 8 ·
Semantic Vocabularies 1
JSON-LD contexts give the data shared meaning across APIs. We profile them because semantics are what let a machine reconcile 'customer' here with 'customer' somewhere else.
JSON-LD contexts and semantic vocabularies used across these APIs.
Spectral Rules 1
Governance rulesets we run against this provider's specs — the automated checks behind parts of the score. Profiling them makes the quality bar explicit and re-runnable, not a matter of opinion.
Zero-Trust Security Model API Rules
SPECTRALJSON Schema 2
Standalone JSON Schema definitions describe the data models behind the API. We profile them so the shapes are validatable on their own — useful long after a single request is forgotten.
Standalone JSON Schema definitions for this provider's data models.
Zero Trust Maturity Assessment
JSON SCHEMAZero Trust Pillar
JSON SCHEMAJSON Structure 1
JSON Structure captures the data shapes in a form built for tooling — a complement to JSON Schema that keeps the model machine-legible.
JSON Structure definitions describing this provider's data shapes.
Zero Trust Security Model Pillar Structure
JSON STRUCTUREExamples 1
Real request and response payloads are what turn a spec from abstract into obvious — and they're one of the twelve things an agent needs to call an API correctly on the first try.
Example request and response payloads for these APIs.
Security Posture 2
Authentication, domain security, vulnerability disclosure, and trust-center signals — the evidence that a provider takes security seriously enough to document it. We profile it because you can't govern what you can't see.
Authentication, domain security, vulnerability disclosure, and trust-center signals.
Zero Trust Security Model Vulnerability Disclosure
Hackerone · security.txt · contact published
SECURITYUse Cases 6
What developers actually build with this provider — captured so the catalogue answers 'what is this for', not just 'what does this expose'.
What developers build with this provider.
Federal Civilian Compliance
Meeting OMB M-22-09 and CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model requirements.
DoD Mission Systems
Implementing the seven DoD Zero Trust pillars and 152 capabilities.
Critical Infrastructure
Applying Zero Trust to OT and ICS environments in energy, water, and transportation.
Healthcare Data Protection
Protecting PHI under HIPAA using Zero Trust controls and continuous verification.
Financial Services Compliance
Aligning Zero Trust with SOX, GLBA, and PCI-DSS requirements.
Higher Education Research
Securing distributed research networks and BYOD environments.
Resources
Every other property we hold for Zero-Trust Security Model — documentation, portals, status pages, policies, and corporate surface — grouped by the job it does, following the integrator's arc from getting started to running in production.
Get Started 3
Portal, sign-up, and the first successful call
Documentation 7
Reference material describing how the API behaves
Scroll within the panel for all 7 ·
Design & Contract 2
Pagination, idempotency, versioning, errors, and events
Build 3
SDKs, sample code, and the tooling you integrate with
Access & Security 5
Authentication, authorization, and security posture
Other 1
Properties that don't map to a standard resource type
← All providers · Data indexed from github.com/api-evangelist/zero-trust-security-model · machine-readable index on apis.io