A host of countries have recently announced major commitments to significantly cut their carbon emissions, promising to reach \"net zero\" in the coming years. The term is becoming a global rallying cry, frequently cited as a necessary step to successfully beat back climate change, and the devastation it is causing.
Net zero by 2050 is the goal. But countries also need to demonstrate how they will get there. Efforts to reach net-zero must be complemented with adaptation and resilience measures, and the mobilization of climate financing for developing countries.
Reducing emissions is extremely important. To get to net zero, we also need to find ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Here again, solutions are at hand. The most important have existed in nature for thousands of years.
Typically targeted towards a specific company, device, or application, a successful zero day attack can inflict significant damage across an organization. For example, DataProt reports that ransomware attacks are expected to occur every 11 seconds and cost over $20 billion globally per annum. Experience indicates that threat actors target organizations with multiple interconnected systems, security flaws, deep pockets, and the willingness to pay to restore business services.
A zero trust strategy can introduce an additional level of security into the CASB solution. This security model assumes that all devices and users are untrusted and must be verified before being granted access to resources. By requiring those outside and inside the network perimeter to authenticate and authorize access to resources, CASB can function within a more comprehensive and secure network architecture.
CASB along with zero trust enforcement provide granular visibility to user access, activity, and data. The implicit enforcement of policy delivered through the in-line nature of the capability covers every device connecting to cloud resources, including unmanaged smartphones and personal laptops. In securing these connections, the CASB provides the administrator with a complete view of the cloud applications being used and their usage pattern, without creating friction which can hamper productivity.
Key to adopting zero-trust architecture is the notion that inherent trust is removed from the internal network. Simply because people are connected to a network doesn't mean you should be able access everything on that network.
For zero trust to be effective, each person connected to a service is authenticated, and the device, user, and connection authorized against rules and policies. These policies assess the amount of confidence you have in a user and their device, regardless of where the connection request comes from, and grant access to resources accordingly.
In a zero trust architecture, no attempts are made to create a trusted network. Instead, the concept of trust is eliminated entirely. Once the protect surface is determined, how network traffic traverses the surface, learning which users are accessing protected assets, and cataloging the applications used and the methods of connectivity become the linchpins to creating and enforcing secure access polices for protected data. When those dependencies are understood it is possible to put controls in place close to the protect surface to create a microperimeter, typically by use of a next-generation firewall (NGFW) called a segmentation gateway that only allows known traffic from legitimate users and applications. The NGFW offers visibility into traffic and enforces access control based on the Kipling Method, defining access policy based on who, what, when, where, why, and how. This helps determine what traffic can pass through the microperimeter, keeping unauthorized users and applications out, and keeping sensitive data in.
Zero trust was the brainchild of John Kindervag, a Forrester Research VP and principal analyst. In 2010, he presented the model for the concept when he realized that existing security models relied on the outdated assumption that everything within the enterprise network should be trusted. Acceptance of the zero trust model accelerated in 2013 when Google announced their implementation of a zero trust security policy in their own network. By 2019, Gartner had listed zero trust as a core component of secure access service edge solutions.
Identify the protect surface including sensitive data and applications. Forrester recommends a simple three-class model using categories of public, internal, and confidential. Data requiring protection can then be segmented into microperimeters, which can be linked together to yield a broader zero trust network.
There is no single approach or technology for zero trust. The architecture will depend on the size of the protect surface and the resultant micro segmentation, and architects must consider the impact that zero trust policies will have on the user experience for affected applications, databases, and other resources.
Zero trust can be a challenge, as it will limit access and may ruffle feathers of those who had casual access to applications that were not needed to perform their job functions. A proper education and training on the need and benefits of a zero trust network should play a large role in the initial rollout and for the onboarding of new users.
This reduces the onus on employees for much of the security stack, since zero trust assumes employees are inherently insecure until proven otherwise. Even the smallest of organizations can begin adopting zero trust security policies, for example by insisting on multifactor authentication for every user, whether internal or external.
Since WFH employees typically rely on two or more devices to perform work functions, it is extremely important for zero trust security to be completely device and network agnostic. Since remote work is here to stay, the ability for zero trust to enable secure connections over new and unknown devices will continue to be a factor in its continued growth.
In recent years there has been a growing interest in zero-net energy buildings. Since the 1970s, the concept of net energy has been applied in many different fields, from fossil fuels 10,11 and nuclear energy to renewable energies 12. In buildings, net energy often refers to a balance between the energy consumption in a building and the energy produced by its renewable or alternative energy sources. The terms zero energy buildings (ZEB) and Zero Net Energy Buildings (ZNEB) have been adopted by different researchers. Definitions and detailed descriptions can be found in the works of Paiho S, et all and Muresan AA, et all 13,14. In the EENC, there is a balance between the energy taken and supplied to the energy grid (usually electricity) over a period of time, nominally one year. ZEB is more general and may include autonomous buildings. Several countries have adopted or consider the possibility of establishing ZEB as their future energy targets for construction, such as the Construction Technology Program of the US Department of Energy and the EU Directive on Energy Efficiency of Buildings 14,15. There has also been a series of case studies around the world that demonstrate the potential of ZEB to help alleviate the depletion of energy resources and the deterioration of our environment 15,16. In general, CSEs involve two design strategies. First, minimize the need to use energy in buildings (especially for heating and cooling) through more efficient measures from the energy point of view; and second, adopting renewable sources of energy and other technologies to meet minimum energy needs 17,19. This article presents a review of the works related to ZEB and discusses the implications for the sustainable development of these facilities. To give a more complete vision and a better understanding of the underlying issues, we will also consider studies that are not specific to the ZEB, but are directly related to the design strategies and lead to the development of ZEB. Show the investigative propensities in technologies of ZEB, avoiding the technicalities of the practical technology and its interiorities.
For the elaboration of this work, the scienjpgic research catalog Scopus was used, as well as the scientometric analysis tools that it provides to its subscribers 1. Under the search criteria \"zero energy buildings technology\" in the title of the articles, the summary and the words caves of these; and considering from the first record in 1956 to February 2018. 823 scienjpgic contributions and 3561 patents related to these were detected in said catalog.
The United States is the nation at the forefront in this type of research and practice. Figure 3 shows that the countries that today represent the engine of the world economy see in building technology zero energy, a livable alternative to the global energy, environmental and economic crisis. The network of collaboration between researchers from different nations has greater density as of 2016 among European nations.
The most exposed researcher on this subject so far is Andreas K. Athienitis, Concordia University Montreal (Montréal, Canada). This researcher has 11 published works within the mentioned academic directory and an H index of 27. Table 1 shows the most cited contributions in the Scopus catalog. This table reviews and analyzes publications dealing with zero-energy building technologies. The mentioned table highlights the title of the contribution and the objective of this.
The map of research terms in zero energy building technologies, shown in Figure 2 illustrates the interest of the scienjpgic community in the design of this type of buildings. The design of zero energy buildings is developed considering the energy criteria and the means by which said energy is supplied. The energy demanded is generated mainly by renewable energy sources, but when these sources do not compensate the load, conventional energy sources are used. The sources of energy can be in the building, in its place or at a distance. For these reasons in the modeling and designs of a ZEB, several parameters must be considered, such as: 59ce067264