VPN Options for Remote Teams: Traditional VPN, ZTNA and Mesh VPNs Reviewed

Remote and hybrid working has turned remote access from an occasional convenience into core infrastructure. Staff need to reach internal applications, file shares, servers and administrative tools from home, from client sites and while travelling, and they expect it to work as smoothly as it does in the office. Three broad approaches dominate today: the traditional remote access VPN, zero trust network access (ZTNA) and peer-to-peer mesh VPNs. Each reflects a different philosophy about trust and network design. This review explains how they work, where each fits and how to choose without being swept along by marketing language.

Traditional remote access VPN

A traditional VPN creates an encrypted tunnel from a user's device to a gateway, usually a firewall or VPN concentrator at the office or data centre. Once connected and authenticated, the device behaves as though it were on the internal network, typically receiving an internal address and reaching whatever subnets the VPN policy allows. Common protocols include IPsec, SSL/TLS-based VPNs and, increasingly, WireGuard.

Pros

• Mature, well understood and supported by almost every firewall vendor.
• Works with virtually any application, including legacy protocols.
• Often already included with existing firewall hardware or licences.
• Simple mental model for users: connect, then work.

Cons

• Broad network-level access by default; a compromised device can often reach far more than the user needs.
• The gateway is exposed to the internet and is a frequent target for attackers when vulnerabilities are disclosed.
• Traffic to cloud services may be routed through the office unnecessarily if full tunnelling is used, adding latency.
• Capacity is limited by the gateway, which can become a bottleneck when everyone works remotely.

A traditional VPN can still be a sensible choice, but it should be hardened: multi-factor authentication, prompt patching of the gateway, segmented access policies per user group and device posture checks where available.

Zero trust network access (ZTNA)

ZTNA reverses the VPN model. Instead of placing a user on the network, it grants access to specific applications, one at a time, based on identity, device health and context. Applications are typically published through connectors that make outbound connections to a cloud broker, so nothing on the internal network needs to accept inbound connections from the internet. Users authenticate through the organisation's identity provider, and each request is evaluated against policy.

Pros

• Least-privilege access by design: users see only the applications they are entitled to.
• No inbound ports exposed for the protected applications, reducing attack surface.
• Policy can take account of device compliance, location and risk signals.
• Scales through the provider's cloud rather than a single gateway.
• Detailed per-application logging that helps with auditing and investigations.

Cons

• Requires a clear inventory of applications and who should access them, which takes effort.
• Some legacy, peer-to-peer or server-initiated protocols are harder to support.
• Usually a subscription service, adding ongoing cost and dependence on a provider.
• Effectiveness depends heavily on the maturity of your identity and device management.

ZTNA is frequently part of a broader secure access service edge (SASE) offering that also provides web filtering and cloud firewalling.

Mesh VPNs

Mesh VPNs, often built on WireGuard, connect devices directly to one another in an encrypted overlay network. A coordination service handles key distribution, identity and access rules, while traffic flows peer to peer where possible, relaying only when direct connections cannot be established. Each device, whether a laptop, server, cloud instance or small appliance, gets a stable address on the overlay.

Pros

• Very quick to deploy, often without changes to firewalls or port forwarding.
• Direct device-to-device connections avoid hair-pinning through a central gateway.
• Access control lists can restrict which users and devices may reach which others.
• Well suited to technical teams, developers and connecting servers across multiple clouds or sites.

Cons

• Agents must be installed on each participating device, including servers.
• Access rules can grow complex without careful naming and tagging conventions.
• Hosted coordination services introduce a third-party dependency; self-hosted options add operational work.
• Application-level controls and auditing are generally less rich than dedicated ZTNA products.

Choosing the right approach

The best option depends on your applications, your identity maturity and the profile of your users. Consider these questions:

1. Where do your applications live? If most are SaaS, remote access matters mainly for the few internal systems left, and ZTNA or a mesh may be more proportionate than a full VPN.
2. Who needs access, and to what? Broad staff populations accessing a handful of web applications fit ZTNA well. Administrators needing SSH, RDP and many servers may prefer a mesh or a tightly scoped VPN.
3. How mature is identity and device management? ZTNA relies on a solid identity provider with multi-factor authentication and, ideally, managed devices.
4. What legacy protocols must be supported? Unusual or older applications may still need network-level access.
5. What can your team operate? A well-run VPN is safer than a poorly configured ZTNA deployment.
6. What are the compliance and logging requirements? Per-application audit trails may favour ZTNA.

Many organisations end up with a combination: ZTNA for general staff access to internal web applications, a mesh VPN for engineers and server-to-server connectivity, and a small, locked-down traditional VPN kept for a few legacy systems during a transition.

Security essentials whatever you choose

• Enforce phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication where possible.
• Integrate with a central identity provider so leavers lose access immediately.
• Check device posture: supported operating system, disk encryption, endpoint protection and up-to-date patches.
• Apply least privilege and review access groups regularly.
• Keep gateways, connectors and agents patched, and subscribe to vendor security advisories.
• Centralise logs and alert on unusual patterns, such as logins from unexpected locations.

Conclusion

Traditional VPNs remain workable and familiar, but their broad network access and exposed gateways make them the riskiest option if left at default settings. ZTNA offers the strongest least-privilege model for organisations with good identity foundations and web-based internal applications. Mesh VPNs are an elegant, low-friction choice for technical teams and distributed infrastructure. Start by mapping who needs access to what, then choose the approach, or combination of approaches, that delivers exactly that access and nothing more.