Firewall and NAC in Government: Strategy Still Lags Behind

If you’ve been following cybersecurity trends, you know threat evolution is no longer measured in years but in months. Automated attacks, AI-driven malware, persistent espionage campaigns, and increasingly sophisticated evasion tactics are now the norm. In this context, any protection strategy that isn’t forward-looking risks becoming obsolete the day it’s launched.

That’s exactly what many experts have pointed out following the release of Mexico’s new Framework Agreement for Leasing Firewall and Network Access Control (NAC) Equipment. While on paper it looks like an administrative improvement, a deeper technical and strategic analysis raises tough questions: is the public sector truly ready for current and emerging threats?

At TecnetOne, we believe this conversation is crucial—not just for cybersecurity specialists, but for every citizen who relies on digital public services.

What Is the Framework Agreement—and Why Does It Matter?

Published on January 12, 2026, the agreement sets a centralized scheme for federal agencies to lease firewall and NAC solutions via the Compras MX platform. The official goals are:

1. Standardize procurement
   
   
2. Prevent improvised purchasing
   
   
3. Reduce discretion
   
   
4. Accelerate acquisitions

In theory, it’s a welcome change. For years, each agency made purchases however they could—based on uneven technical assessments and without a unified cybersecurity vision. The agreement implicitly acknowledges that long-standing issue.

However, organizing procurement does not automatically mean strengthening digital defenses.

Standardization ≠ Modernization

The main concern lies in the technical focus of the agreement. The technical annex shows a security model still anchored in traditional perimeter-based thinking—designed for a world of closed networks and less dynamic threats.

Yes, it requires:

1. Traffic inspection
   
   
2. Intrusion prevention
   
   
3. VPN capabilities
   
   
4. User control

But it also permits:

1. Cryptographic algorithms already showing signs of obsolescence
   
   
2. Modest performance thresholds (like 10 Gbps throughput)
   
   
3. NAC models based on static validations

In today’s environment of hybrid cloud, IoT, remote work, 24/7 services, and 5G connectivity, these parameters are barely adequate for the present—and clearly insufficient for the near future.

Learn more: Coatlicue: Supercomputer Without Digital Foundations in Mexico

The Missing Piece: A Real Zero Trust Vision

One of the most critical gaps lies in the NAC strategy. The agreement still assumes a legacy logic: validate a device upon entry and trust it once inside.

This contradicts modern Zero Trust principles, where:

1. No user or device is trusted by default
   
   
2. Verification is continuous
   
   
3. Access adapts dynamically to context

In government environments—where legacy systems, third-party vendors, and multiple access levels coexist—not embracing Zero Trust is like leaving the door half open.

Competing on Price, Not on Strategy

Another concern is the procurement model itself. Every time an agency needs equipment, it must invite all providers listed in the framework. In practice, competition boils down to:

1. Price
   
   
2. Minimum technical compliance

This favors solutions that are “good enough,” but not necessarily the most secure or innovative. Cybersecurity, however, shouldn’t be treated like office supplies. Choosing based on price alone in an advanced threat environment is a risky gamble.

The Risk of Vendor Lock-in

The agreement also introduces a classic problem: vendor lock-in. By requiring all firewall types to come from the same manufacturer, it limits interoperability and reduces future flexibility.

Ironically, a policy aimed at preventing bad practices could end up:

1. Concentrating the market among a few vendors
   
   
2. Hindering adoption of new technologies
   
   
3. Increasing long-term costs

Rather than strengthening digital sovereignty, this approach risks deepening technological dependence.

Leasing vs. Building Internal Capabilities

While the leasing model is promoted as flexible, it raises a deeper question: What does the state gain long-term?

Leasing without a parallel strategy for:

1. Knowledge transfer
   
   
2. Staff training
   
   
3. Internal capacity building

is often more expensive and less sustainable. Cybersecurity isn’t a product—it’s a combination of people, processes, and technology.

Without strong internal talent, any infrastructure becomes a black box, fully dependent on vendors.

Impact on States and Municipalities

The agreement doesn’t just apply to the federal government. States and municipalities using federal funds must also comply. While this expands its reach, it also exports its weaknesses to lower levels of government—where budgets are smaller, talent scarcer, and tech gaps wider.

The risk is clear: poorly designed standardization may become a structural limitation for those who most need flexibility and support.

Similar titles: Is the Mexican Government Being Hacked by Its Own Employees?

Administrative Order ≠ Digital Strategy

To be fair, the Framework Agreement has its merits:

1. Better expense control
   
   
2. Formal transparency
   
   
3. Reduced improvisation
   
   
4. Less room for corruption

But national cybersecurity isn’t solved by administrative order alone. It demands:

1. Long-term vision
   
   
2. Continuous updates
   
   
3. Openness to innovation
   
   
4. Alignment with global standards

In an era where attackers already use AI, automation, and advanced evasion, defending with yesterday’s guidelines is playing at a disadvantage.

A Growing Gap

While the public sector moves slowly through regulatory cycles, malicious actors evolve without constraints. No budget cycles, no bidding processes. They adapt, test, fail, and try again.

The result? A growing gap between threats and defenses.

Final Thought

The Firewall and NAC Framework Agreement is a step toward administrative order—but not necessarily digital resilience. Without strong moves toward innovation, Zero Trust, internal talent, and modern architectures, standardization may become a new form of institutional lag.

At TecnetOne, we believe public sector cybersecurity should be treated as a strategic national priority—not just a procurement issue. Because protecting state digital infrastructure is not just a technical matter—it’s a question of trust, stability, and the future.

Order is necessary. Foresight is essential.