<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Continuous-Validation on microsegment.io</title>
    <link>https://microsegment.io/tags/continuous-validation/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Continuous-Validation on microsegment.io</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://microsegment.io/tags/continuous-validation/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Microsegmentation Fails Quietly When Policy Drifts</title>
      <link>https://microsegment.io/post/2026-08-04-segmentation-policy-drift/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://microsegment.io/post/2026-08-04-segmentation-policy-drift/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;The first microsegmentation policy is usually the easy one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The application owner explains the expected flows. The security team observes traffic. Rules are tested, approved, and enforced. The result looks clean: web talks to application, application talks to database, administrators enter through a controlled path, and everything else is denied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the environment changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A new monitoring collector appears. A migration needs temporary access. A workload moves to another cloud account. A certificate service changes. A developer opens an emergency path during an incident. The old application is retired, but its rules remain. Six months later, the policy still exists, but it no longer describes the system it was meant to protect.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
