Securitylab•October 1, 2026•🇷🇺Translated from Russian

Inside the Fortress: Why Perimeter Security Tools Fall Short and How Microsegmentation Protects Networks Internally

Companies annually invest enormous budgets in strengthening the IT perimeter by deploying firewalls and intrusion detection systems. Today, however, these measures no longer serve as a guarantee of security. Attack vectors have shifted: hackers increasingly cause damage from inside networks, moving between servers and seizing critical data. A viable solution lies in protecting the network at the virtualization layer.

The Danger Inside the Network

One problem with traditional networks is that virtual machines inside the same L2 domain are not isolated from each other. From a security perspective, this resembles an apartment building with poor sound insulation. Any resident can overhear neighbors, while unauthorized visitors can freely move between floors and test door locks. For virtual machines holding critical data, this creates risks of traffic interception. For an attacker who has gained a foothold, it provides ideal conditions for scanning neighboring nodes and performing lateral movement to spread malware.

Isolation of objects within a single logical network is also necessary because different applications often have varying security requirements. Some require their own “network safe” — complete isolation to prevent any unauthorized access. This applies not only to controlling access to confidential data but also to protecting the environment from “noisy neighbors,” such as virtual machines that aggressively consume traffic.

Implementing such isolation through classic VLANs and static ACLs on physical switches is practically impossible today. Manually managing thousands of rule lines is too time-consuming and expensive, so security is often sacrificed for faster service deployment.

Why the Traditional Approach Is Insufficient

The traditional network protection model follows the “fortress” principle: network engineers configure powerful perimeter firewalls to block external threats. Yet a firewall cannot control traffic inside the network; it is designed to filter traffic between networks, not within them. Modern web applications consist of hundreds of third-party libraries downloaded from the internet that do not always undergo full audits. If even one such library is compromised, malicious code ends up inside the perimeter.

Modern IT systems rarely operate in complete autonomy. They often involve connections to contractor infrastructure and remote workplace architectures, creating multiple additional entry points without breaching multilayer perimeter defenses. The human factor adds further risk. Without internal controls, security of each virtual machine rests on its administrator, who may disable the OS packet filter during debugging and forget to re-enable it.

Limitations of Firewalls

Placing firewalls in front of every network and every virtual machine is impractical. Two virtual machines in the same VLAN do not require a third network node to communicate, so routing traffic through an inspection point would likely cause significant performance degradation. Firewalls also face throughput limits and can become bottlenecks. Since east-west traffic typically accounts for 80 percent of system traffic, firewalls sized for 20 percent north-south traffic would need to handle four times the volume, leading to increased latency and application degradation.

How Microsegmentation Protects the Network from Within

To achieve the required protection level, the network must be flexible enough to be divided into atomic isolated segments with individual security policies. This approach is realized through microsegmentation — a technology that, at the SDN level, breaks VLANs into numerous microsegments down to individual virtual machine ports. For each virtual machine or group, administrators can define allowed or denied traffic by ports, IP addresses, and protocols.

SDN technologies virtualize the packet path, effectively emulating a virtual packet filter at the desired segment. Microsegmentation via SDN installs these filters directly at the network port exit of the virtual machine. The key security advantage is complete independence from actions inside the virtual machine itself. The mechanism cannot be disabled because it operates at the virtualization infrastructure level and executes immediately upon traffic leaving the virtual machine’s network interface, enforcing the Zero Trust principle.

Performance remains unaffected because microsegmentation code runs on the most powerful component — the virtualization server. Scaling is natural: as the number of virtual machines grows, so does the number of hypervisors, keeping filtering load within established limits. All permissions and prohibitions are managed centrally and can change flexibly. One oil-and-gas customer using zVirt creates up to 5,000 new microsegmentation rules per week thanks to a mature open REST API. In traditional networks, such dynamics would slow infrastructure; in an SDN environment, it becomes standard practice.

Why Microsegmentation Is Harder to Bypass

In a traditional network, one successful perimeter breach places an attacker in a “trust zone” where they can move freely. Microsegmentation multiplies the difficulty. Even if one segment is compromised, the attacker remains confined. Any attempt to scan ports or map the network is blocked, and every probe against a closed segment is logged, enabling early detection. Separation of the control plane from the data plane ensures that even root access on a virtual machine does not allow modification of access rules stored on the SDN controller and hypervisor.

This makes microsegmentation a resilient foundation for network security. Its presence does not eliminate the need for perimeter firewalls; external and internal protections must complement each other. The combination of traditional security tools and SDN delivers both high security under Zero Trust and automated network management, removing the need to choose between protection and speed.

Related articles

Habr•Other

Testing Sinonix Controlled Data Exchange System with VEGMAN R220 G3 Servers and TATLIN.BACKUP.M Storage

YADRO and IT Bastion conducted extensive performance testing of the Sinonix information exchange control system using high-capacity VEGMAN R220 G3 servers and TATLIN.BACKUP.M storage arrays. The tests simulated one-way data transfer scenarios for disaster recovery and air-gapped backup environments required by Russian presidential decree No. 604 on critical infrastructure protection. Multiple fio workloads were run for up to five hours under both light and heavy queue-depth profiles with MTU sizes of 1500 and 9000. Results showed that Sinonix introduced minimal overhead in moderate workloads and up to 27 percent reduction under heavy parallel loads when using jumbo frames. The setup replicated multi-tier protective perimeters including synchronous replication, one-way safe zones, and remote immutable storage. The testing confirmed stable long-term operation without degradation or failures across all configurations.

AntiMalware•Other

Developers Achieve Native iOS 16 Boot on Redmi Note 10 Pro and Note 12 4G Using Modified Apple XNU Kernel

A team known as dipa-studio has successfully booted iOS 16 natively on Redmi Note 10 Pro and Redmi Note 12 4G devices without any Android layer or emulation. The project relies on an adapted Apple XNU kernel and system components taken from the iOS 16.7.16 firmware of the iPhone X. While basic interface elements such as the Control Center, Notification Center, and Settings app function, the majority of hardware features remain non-operational. No Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular connectivity, audio, cameras, or GPS are available, and the App Store along with Apple ID login are inaccessible. The port disables a significant portion of iOS security mechanisms, and installation wipes all user data from the original Android system. Performance is limited because the CPU renders the interface at roughly 20-30 frames per second without a dedicated graphics driver. The effort is described as purely experimental, with the Redmi Note 12 4G variant currently reaching only the lock screen.

Habr•Other

How to Earn a Living Writing Technical Articles on Information Security

A detailed guide examines multiple platforms where technical writers can get paid for publishing articles on information security topics. Skillbox offers payments starting from 3,000 RUB but requires a civil-law contract and tax reporting. Codeby pays 250 RUB per 1,000 characters for relevant technical pieces without contracts, making it suitable for remote workers and privacy-conscious authors. Duty-Free provides a fixed 200 USD per article paid in cryptocurrency, yet operates in a gray area under law-enforcement scrutiny. Xakep.ru compensates authors with variable fees around 150 USD for pentest-related material plus subscription perks. The article also discusses risks of writing for high-paying but questionable resources and provides a roadmap based on long-term career goals.

AntiMalware•Other

True Crime from Investigators: Solar Group to Premiere Real Cyber Investigation Series at Russian Cybersecurity Week 2026

The Solar Group has announced that its Cyberculture project will shift from poster exhibitions to a short true-crime series titled True Cyber Crime. The series draws directly from real investigation cases handled by the company's security practitioners. Episodes will air on Cyberbez TV during the SOC Forum, which forms the centerpiece of Russian Cybersecurity Week running from 26 to 30 October 2026. In parallel, the Cyberbez-Likbez track will deliver lectures and meetings across more than twenty universities between 5 and 26 October, targeting both specialized and non-specialized audiences. The main SOC Forum itself is scheduled for 27-28 October at the Lomonosov cluster in Moscow. Organizers state that the narrative format is intended to hold viewer attention longer than static posters while explaining concrete digital threats and recommended protective behaviors.