What physical security risks are created by an organization’s implementation of a PHYSBITS solution? What mitigations would you recommend to lesson them?
Use this link for the reference to Physical Security Bridge to IT Security PHYSBITS
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The physical security risks created by an organization’s implementation of PHYSBITS solution are (1) creation of lager attack surface: the integration of physical security with IT security gives attackers access to an organizations network; if the physical security is breached, an attacker who physically breaches a facility could have access to critical IT infrastructures and sensitive data. (2) Management: integrating the physical security to IT systems can create challenges in managing and maintaining security protocols across both physical and logical environments. (3) Configurations: human error could lead to improper configurations thereby creating more vulnerabilities that will be exploited by an attacker.
I will recommend network segmentation to mitigate the vulnerability of lager attack surface created by PHYSBITS implementation. Secondly, I will recommend a targeted training for staff on both physical and IT security to reduce the risk of human error. Lastly, I will recommend periodic assessment of PHYSBITS systems to identify and mitigate any vulnerability in the findings.
PHYSBITS integrates physical security systems with IT infrastructure, centralizing control of functions like access and surveillance. This creates risks such as attackers controlling multiple security layers if compromised. To mitigate this, segment critical systems, use strong access controls, and enforce multi-factor authentication (MFA). IT vulnerabilities can also be exploited to manipulate physical security features; regular updates, encryption, and cybersecurity practices are essential. Physical tampering with devices is a threat, so secure them with tamper-resistant enclosures and detection alarms. Power failures can disrupt security; use redundant power and fail-safe modes. Protect network infrastructure with encryption and physical barriers. Insider threats can be managed through background checks, activity monitoring, and audit logs.
You made some great points about the risks of combining physical security systems with IT infrastructure, especially when it comes to tampering. The fact that attackers could take control of several security layers if they break into the system should be the main concern. Using tamper-resistant enclosures and detection alarms is a smart idea to help prevent this. It’s important for organizations to stay alert and take steps to protect both their physical and digital assets. Your suggestions about using strong access controls and keeping everything updated show just how important a complete security plan is.
Thank you for your response. An additional point to consider is the importance of network segmentation. By separating IT infrastructure from physical security systems on different networks, an attacker’s ability to escalate privileges if one is composted is significantly limited. This can act as an additional layer of defense, ensuring that even if an attacker breaches one segment, they won’t necessarily have free reign across the entire system.
Implementing a PHYSBITS solution, which connects physical and IT security, can create a few physical security risks. Using different tokens for building and IT access can lead to problems, especially considering human errors as well if the systems don’t work well together, potentially leaving certain areas unprotected. If physical access logs don’t match up with IT access logs, it can make investigations harder. There’s also a risk that delays in setting up or removing access for employees can leave unauthorized people with access to important areas.
To address these risks, it’s important to integrate physical and IT security systems, so the same access tokens work for both. Automating the process of giving or removing access when new people are hired or leave the company can help prevent delays. Using a centralized system to monitor both physical and IT security can also improve real time detection and response to threats.
Hi Chris,
I agree with your assessment that integrating physical and IT security through a PHYSBITS solution presents risks, particularly with the potential for mismatched access tokens and delays in updating permissions. However, I would also highlight the importance of addressing not just the technical integration but the organizational processes that support it. For example, streamlining cross-departmental communication between HR, IT, and security can prevent delays in provisioning or de-provisioning access. Additionally, while automation is key, there’s a need to ensure regular audits to catch any gaps that automation might miss. A question to consider: How would you handle access revocation during an emergency, when automation might be too slow or insufficient?
In an emergency, there would be established processes in place to revoke physical and IT access. It is likely that the user’s profile would be switched to inactive and be removed from all groups. In Identity and Access Management (IAM), best practice is to provide groups with rights, roles, and attributes. This makes it efficient to quickly remove the user from all applicable groups and combats the human nature of forgetting to remove all rights. This is the same procedure used when an employee moves to a different team, they are removed from the groups associated with their old team and added to the groups related to their new job functions.
The greatest security risk created by PHYSBITS is that in the event of an attack in which the attacker is able to breach the physical layer of the company’s physical security systems, the intruder will have access to the organization’s data and IT network. Furthermore, the creation and implementation of policies to manage both environments would be complex due to the ever-evolving security threats and ways to mitigate or stop them. Lastly, the human error factor would be a significant concern, as it can likely lead to exploitable vulnerabilities.
The greatest ways to mitigate the risks are to ensure personnel are adequately trained in both physical and IT security, that separation of duties policies are enforced, and that assessments of PHYSBITS systems are scheduled to ensure vulnerabilities are identified.
You bring up some strong points, particularly around the complexity of managing integrated security policies and the ever-present risk of human error. Considering the evolving nature of security threats, how do you suggest companies keep their training programs up-to-date to effectively address new vulnerabilities that might arise within a PHYSBITS system?
When an organization integrates its physical and IT security systems using PHYSBITS, it opens up new risks, like unauthorized access to buildings or tampering with security devices, which can affect both physical and IT environments. The PHYSBITS highlights that there can be “incompatibilities between building access hardware tokens and IT access tokens,” making it difficult to track or investigate potential threats. It also points out that “monitoring systems do not provide a situational awareness of coordinated physical and IT attacks,” which could leave the organization vulnerable. To prevent these issues, it’s important to use encrypted credentials, have real-time centralized monitoring to catch suspicious activity quickly, and regularly maintain tamper-resistant security devices to ensure they’re always functioning correctly.
The PHYSBITS solution is an integration of physical security management and IT Security management. It aims to marry both modules under one business process where it claims reduce administrative overhead, enhance security, more effective reporting, and cost savings. The concept itself seeks to manage people, facilities, and IT systems under one integration.
The risk of administering a system proposed by the PHYSBITS Framework is that it leaves corporations with a single point of failure. The framework creates a vulnerability for corporations by bringing IT security and physical security closer in which threat actors can exploit with tools such as Advanced Persistent Threats (APT). This kind of system would make it easier for threat actors to traverse between systems and potentially grant them access to both physical virtual resources. Another vulnerability introduced is that an outage of the security management service now affects various parts of operations and recovery/business continuity would be delayed. In the instance that the application is down, access control for buildings and rooms is now hindered which may permit unauthorized access in states of confusion derived from chaos.
In conclusion, the de-segmentation of security functions is not worth the cost savings in any term. It exposes an organization’s assets and personnel to unnecessary risks and makes it more effortless for threat actors to gain heightened access to different types of assets. It also restricts organizations to a specific tool and goes against best practices of customizing services and tools to fit the dynamic needs of businesses. Most organizations already have ways of managing physical and IT security separately that are tailored-fit for operations.
I recommend for companies to maintain segmented environments whenever possible. The segmentations would hinder the flow of unauthorized access from one system to the other. However, the segmentation should not being done in a way that the availability of IT services and assets is impacted. It should be done in a balance.
PHYSBITS provides an approach in integrating IT security into physical security. However, risks may arise both technical and human-caused errors. For example, a power outage is a technical risk that may disrupt the PHYSBIT solution, leading to the inability to monitor and control. This can be mitigated by using back up power solutions such as backup generators. There is also room for human error as well, for example when onboarding individuals utilizing smart cards for access, the employee granting access may inadvertently provide greater access than intended mistakenly revealing sensitive information. This can be mitigated by reassessing and monitoring employee accesses on a regular basis.
You raise an important point about the integration of IT and physical security through PHYSBITS, highlighting the potential risks from both technical failures and human errors. Implementing backup power solutions and conducting regular reassessments of access permissions are essential strategies to mitigate these vulnerabilities effectively.
Good morning Ericberto,
I agree with your assessment and the suggestions you made. Along with reassessing and monitoring employee access, implementing changes to the organization’s initial and continuous training to include semi-specialized physical, operational, and technical procedures related to those mentioned above could also be beneficial. Great post.
The implementation of a PHYSBITS (Physical Security Bridge to IT Security) solution integrates physical and information security systems, which can introduce new physical security risks. One primary concern is the potential vulnerability of the physical access controls, such as badge systems or biometric readers, that are linked to the IT network. If these physical access points are compromised, unauthorized individuals could gain access not only to physical facilities but also to sensitive IT systems. For example, tampering with badge readers or physical access logs could allow attackers to mask or spoof their entry into secured areas, evading detection while accessing critical IT infrastructure. To mitigate this risk, organizations should implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) at both physical and digital access points, ensuring that even if one layer is compromised, unauthorized access can be prevented.
Andrea, I completely agree with your points about the vulnerabilities in physical access controls integrated with IT systems. In addition to implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA), another key strategy for mitigating these risks is through strengthening perimeter security. One of the simplest and most effective ways to prevent unauthorized access to any company is by securing the building’s perimeter with security personnel, surveillance cameras, and fencing. These physical barriers can help prevent intruders from even reaching sensitive areas where IT and physical access controls intersect.
The biggest thing on my mind as I write this is the hurricane currently touching down at my family home in Florida. Because of that I am going to be focusing on the issues that could occur in a PHYSBITS system in the event of a natural disaster like this. The thing that comes to mind the most is how a system that is so interlinked at every level could be affected by outages. If redundancy is not built into the system then a physical outage due to a natural event could potentially prevent access for large swathes of the company. Because of this I believe that having redundant methods for employee access would be necessary.
My heart goes out to you and your family. Hopefully your family is staying safe! You bring up an interesting point about redundancy. Are you referring to applications as well, not just networks/servers?
PHYSBITS, or Physical Security Bridge to IT Security, is an approach developed by the Open Security Exchange to facilitate collaboration between physical and IT security. This integration is crucial for ensuring comprehensive security measures. However, it can introduce physical security risks.
One such risk is the technical threat of a power outage. This can be mitigated by implementing an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) to ensure continuous power. Another threat is human misuse and theft of equipment or information. These can be mitigated through appropriate access controls, including MFA, sufficient training, and other controls like surveillance or monitoring.
A physical security risk that is created when implementing a PHYSBITS framework is the possibility of a delay in disabling access for employees who have left the company. While their IT permissions might be deactivated promptly upon termination, their physical access card could remain active, granting them access to secure or restricted areas posing a security risk.
To mitigate this risk, I would implement an automated deprovision system that deactivates the former employee’s IT access and physical access to the building concurrently. By doing this, you can prevent any unauthorized entry or use of company facilities and digital resources.
You made a good point here Aisha, when the physical and logical is integrated in the security environment, human error could lead to such mistake thereby creating another vulnerability for threat actors to exploit.
The implementation of the PHYSBITS solution integrates both physical and information security systems. This can make room for new physical security risks. A primary concern is the vulnerability of physical access controls like tap-in sensors (like Temple). For example, if someone wanted to get into the Fox School of Business. One can steal a student’s phone and use it to get into a building. Threats then have access to get into offices throughout the building and implement cyberattacks. This could be detrimental to staff and the university. To mitigate this, Temple can implement notifications to students if there are discrepancies with scanning in or having to open their phones before they scan into the building.
Another vulnerability is an outage in the security management service can affect various parts of operations of the business. Another vulnerability is having access to the organization’s data and IT network. This can make situations even more complex and difficult to mitigate. A recommendation I have is Multi-factor authentication like Duo. MFA is very effective in ensuring access is not in the hands of threat actors.
PHYSBITS integrates physical and IT security data, increasing physical breach and insider threat risk. There are also risks that come with using physical security tools like smart cards and access card readers. To lower these risks, businesses should improve their physical security by putting in place strong access controls, monitoring, fingerprint identification, and encryption. Role-based access controls and multi-factor authentication make it harder for people to get into private areas. Regular tracking and gadgets that can’t be tampered with can also find strange activity. Continuous hardware updates and maintenance are necessary, along with training key personnel to handle security incidents. A PHYSBITS system can greatly lower the physical security risks it poses by keeping the gear up to date and in good shape and by teaching key staff.
A company implementing the PHYSBITS solution faces a multitude of potential risks. Integrating physical security location and virtual data would be catastrophic if a hacker was able to enter a physical location unauthorized. For example, the video we watched in class showed someone able to have unauthorized access to a bank. If that person hacks into a branch they will not have access to the bank at large. However, if the banks servers were in that location it would cause a nationwide (in some cases worldwide) catastrophe. Additionally it would be more difficult to have access control. Individuals who have access to the physical technology may not have access to the virtual side of things. Differentiating access, intent of attacks, and managing multiple security layers could lead to gaps.
My recommendation would be multi factor authentication at all touch points physical and virtual. Strict access control guidelines and implementation. Most of all security awareness.
Implementing a PHYSBITS solution provides security and monitoring capabilities, however with that it also introduces certain physical security risks. These risks could be insider threats like employees with physical access to the infrastructure supporting the PHYSBITS solution, data leakage risks if data is improperly encrypted, and devices such as camera and access control devices that are able to be physically tampered with. To help lesson some of these risks, I would recommend role-based access control to limit access to the most critical components of the PHYSBITS solution to only authorized personnel. Furthermore, I would recommend using tamper detection mechanisms that will alert administrators if a device was accessed without permission. Lastly, I would suggest encrypting data with strong standards, using access control mechanisms on collected data, and employing redundancy in the design of the PHYSBITS architecture.