Space research depends on connection.
Researchers need access to shared data. Engineering teams need to maintain systems. Partners need to exchange technical information. Infrastructure operators need visibility into operational environments. Services, devices and applications need to communicate across organisational and technical boundaries.
For many years, cybersecurity models were built around the idea of a trusted internal environment and an untrusted external one. Once a user or system was inside the network, it often had broader access than strictly necessary.
That model no longer fits the way modern research environments operate.
Space research is distributed by nature. It involves multiple organisations, cloud platforms, ground systems, specialist suppliers, remote users, shared infrastructure and long-term collaboration. The boundary between "inside" and "outside" is no longer clear enough to carry the weight of trust.
This is why Zero Trust matters.
Zero Trust does not mean that no one is trusted. It means trust is not assumed automatically. Every user, device, service, application and partner connection should be verified, authorised and limited according to its purpose.
The principle is simple: never rely on location alone as proof of trust.
In a space research environment, that principle is highly relevant. A user connecting from a partner organisation should not receive broad access simply because they are part of the project. A service account should not be able to reach unrelated systems. A supplier connection should not remain open after a maintenance task is complete. A device should not be trusted indefinitely because it was approved months earlier.
Access should be specific, contextual and continuously managed.
Strong identity and least privilege
The first foundation of Zero Trust is strong identity.
Before a connection is allowed, the system must know who or what is requesting access. This applies not only to people, but also to devices, applications, APIs and services. Machine identities are just as important as human identities in modern communication environments.
For COSMOS-SECURE's domain of secure space research communication, this is essential. Communication channels often involve automated systems and distributed infrastructure. If those systems cannot reliably identify each other, encrypted communication alone is not enough.
Strong identity should be supported by appropriate authentication. This may include multi-factor authentication for users, certificate-based authentication for systems, hardware-backed credentials for sensitive roles and controlled processes for issuing and revoking identities.
The second foundation is least privilege.
A verified identity should not automatically receive broad access. It should receive only the access required for its role, task or service function. This reduces the impact of compromised credentials, misconfigured systems or malicious activity.
In practice, least privilege means separating administrative access from research access, limiting supplier permissions, controlling service accounts, segmenting sensitive systems and reviewing privileges regularly.
It also means avoiding permanent access where temporary access is sufficient.
This is particularly important in collaborative projects. Research partnerships often change over time. People join and leave teams. Suppliers complete tasks. Systems are replaced. Access that made sense at one stage of a project may become unnecessary later.
Zero Trust requires access to follow the project reality, not historical convenience.
Segmentation and continuous verification
The third foundation is segmentation.
Traditional network models often allowed too much movement once a user or system gained access. Zero Trust reduces this by dividing environments into smaller, controlled zones. A compromise in one area should not automatically expose the rest of the infrastructure.
For space research, segmentation can separate research data, administrative systems, operational environments, development platforms, partner connections and supplier access. It can also help protect ground-segment systems and communication infrastructure from unnecessary exposure.
Segmentation should not be treated only as a network configuration. It also includes identity boundaries, application permissions, data access rules and operational workflows.
The fourth foundation is continuous verification.
Trust should not be granted once and then forgotten. Context changes. Devices become outdated. Credentials can be stolen. Behaviour can become unusual. Suppliers may change their support model. A system that was trusted yesterday may require reassessment tomorrow.
Continuous verification means monitoring access patterns, checking device and system posture, reviewing privileges, detecting anomalies and responding when conditions change.
This does not mean creating unnecessary friction for legitimate users. It means making sure that trust remains valid over time.
For secure communication, continuous verification can help detect signs of misuse: unusual login behaviour, unexpected API access, abnormal data transfers, repeated authentication failures, changes in certificate activity or access from unexpected locations.
Service-to-service communication and governance
The fifth foundation is secure communication between services.
Zero Trust is often discussed in terms of users, but service-to-service communication is equally important. Modern research systems depend on APIs, automated workflows, data pipelines, cloud services and machine identities. These connections can become attractive targets if they are poorly authenticated or over-permissioned.
Every service should prove its identity. Communication should be encrypted. Access should be limited to the required function. Credentials should be protected and rotated. Logs should support investigation and accountability.
This is especially important for systems that handle sensitive research data or connect to infrastructure used by multiple partners.
The sixth foundation is governance.
Zero Trust is not only a technical architecture. It requires decisions about ownership, policy and accountability. Organisations need to define who can approve access, how identities are issued, how privileges are reviewed, how partner access is governed and how exceptions are handled.
Without governance, Zero Trust becomes a collection of tools rather than a working security model.
In space research environments, governance must also extend across partnerships. A project may depend on multiple organisations with different internal systems. Partners do not need to be identical, but they do need aligned expectations for identity, access, monitoring and incident response.
Crypto-agility and future readiness
The seventh foundation is crypto-agility and future readiness.
Zero Trust and post-quantum security are different topics, but they reinforce each other. Both are based on a similar principle: trust must be managed, not assumed.
As organisations prepare for post-quantum cryptographic migration, they will need clear visibility into identities, certificates, keys and communication paths. Zero Trust architectures can support this visibility by making trust relationships explicit and controlled.
A system that already verifies every connection, limits access and documents communication paths will be better positioned to understand where cryptographic change is needed.
Post-quantum readiness therefore benefits from good Zero Trust foundations.
For organisations involved in space research, the practical starting point is not to "implement Zero Trust" as a slogan. It is to identify where implicit trust still exists.
Which users have broad access because of network location? Which service accounts have more privileges than needed? Which partner connections are permanent when they should be temporary? Which systems trust each other without strong authentication? Which communication paths are not monitored? Which certificates or keys lack clear ownership?
These questions reveal where risk is concentrated.
The COSMOS-SECURE perspective
COSMOS-SECURE focuses on secure communication in space research because communication is where trust becomes operational. Every exchange of data, every authenticated service, every partner connection and every protected channel depends on a trust decision.
Zero Trust helps make those decisions explicit.
It supports secure collaboration without relying on outdated assumptions about network boundaries. It reduces the impact of compromise. It improves visibility. It helps organisations manage access across complex technical and organisational environments.
For space research, this is a practical security model.
The future of secure communication will not be based on broad implicit trust. It will be based on verified identities, controlled access, adaptable cryptography and continuous assurance.
In that future, every connection matters.
And every connection should earn trust before it receives it.