In today's security industry, open standards between manufacturers are a must-have
Integrators and end users should be aware that their definition of open might differ from those of security manufacturers

Much of the buzz in the industry today about open architecture is driven by the IT world, with many security-related decisions now falling on an organization’s IT department, where true open architecture has been around for a long time. Closed systems like we’ve experienced in the security world are not just viewed as foreign to the IT world; they’re considered a step backward.

In today's security industry, open standards between manufacturers are a must-have. End users and integrators require the flexibility and improved reliability that come from working with best-in-class technology — rather than being locked into a certain brand. In addition, a growing number of end users want to be able to integrate their access control technology with other security systems, including VMS. Despite these factors, the degree of “openness” of open architecture found in today’s security industry varies. Integrators and end users should be aware that their definition of open, and their expectations of interoperability, might differ from those of security manufacturers.

In the video surveillance industry, there exists the type of openness that allows almost every camera manufacturer to connect to an NVR. No tinkering is required for the NVR to connect to and operate the cameras. But with access control solutions, that type of plug-and-play interaction doesn’t exist.

Open Standards vs. Proprietary Systems

What does exist today is an effort to transition to open standards. The most significant progress can be found with Open Supervised Device Protocol (OSDP), intended to create interoperability between peripheral devices, such as card readers and control panels, as well as other security systems. Despite support and promotion from the Security Industry Association (SIA), OSDP hasn’t seen heavy adoption in the United States.To date, the majority of readers still use Wiegand interfaces even though there are limitations to the old technology.

The fact is, change needs to be driven by very specific client needs or some form of legislation. If you don’t have one or the other, very few manufacturers will make the investment to change. Many security manufacturers have a long history of using proprietary protocols and hardware. Moving to open architecture means they will need to reengineer their products. Doing so will not necessarily bring about new functionality or guarantee the end user a better product. It could, however, make it easier for an end user to explore other options.

PSIA’s goal is to create a standard IP specification that brings together video surveillance, access control, analytics and other security systems

OSDP And PSIA Security Standards

Because of this dilemma, many haven’t pursued OSDP solutions. Even security integrators have a fear of being displaced if they install open systems, which creates additional resistance to an open movement. Frankly, locking a customer in with a proprietary product isn’t how to create long-term customers. Clients are kept by delivering exceptional service and support.

OSDP adoption is only a part of the open architecture conversation, After all we’re really only talking about readers and other peripherals. Typically, when end users talk about open architecture, they’re referring to the entire system. This is where the Physical Security Interoperability Alliance (PSIA) comes in.

PSIA’s goal is to create a standard IP specification that brings together video surveillance, access control, analytics and other security systems. It’s a great concept, but not without its challenges and limitations. A standard, by its very definition, can’t support every feature and function from every manufacturer. A standard creates a common denominator that all products must meet. This means that functionality and differentiation between vendors might get lost to meet the specifications issued by PSIA.

The same situation can be found with ONVIF on the video surveillance side of the security world. A camera can be ONVIF-compliant and plug-and-play with a VMS. However, if you use the camera’s specific drivers with the VMS, it may be possible to access enhanced functionality.

Despite support and promotion from the Security Industry Association, OSDP hasn’t seen heavy adoption in the United States

Even though the OSDP and PSIA specifications aren’t heavily adopted today, solutions that meet the standards should be easier to integrate and, therefore, more appealing to end users. Additionally, if and when there is an influence strong enough to truly drive standards adoption upon the industry, OSDP and PSIA – by nature of their history and inroads already made – will most likely be the standards adopted. Therefore, selecting products that use these standards is a safe bet as far as future interoperability is concerned.

Another Version Of Open

While standards like OSDP and PSIA exist, the majority of manufacturers today claim to be open because they give OEMs the ability to modify their solutions to work with their proprietary protocol. Put more simply, the way they go to market is to have you modify your product to work with theirs. The end result could be a great integration, but it comes at the cost of time and extended effort. Integrators and end users should be aware when selecting “open” solutions that there could be considerable obstacles to overcome to gain interoperability between various security systems.

In the end, based on today’s definition of open in the security industry, security dealers and end users should align with vendors that have gone through the effort of integrating and supporting reputable industry-leading products, whether they utilize OSDP and PSIA standards or not. Doing so will give the dealer and end user more options concerning system upgrades or changes.  

While the security industry certainly isn’t perfect when it comes to open architecture, the combination of OSDP and PSIA specifications along with each manufacturer’s version of openness has created a level of interoperability that breaks down the challenges of proprietary closed systems.

Share with LinkedIn Share with Twitter Share with Facebook Share with Facebook
Download PDF version Download PDF version

In case you missed it

Water Plant Attack Emphasizes Cyber’s Impact On Physical Security
Water Plant Attack Emphasizes Cyber’s Impact On Physical Security

At an Oldsmar, Fla., water treatment facility on Feb. 5, an operator watched a computer screen as someone remotely accessed the system monitoring the water supply and increased the amount of sodium hydroxide from 100 parts per million to 11,100 parts per million. The chemical, also known as lye, is used in small concentrations to control acidity in the water. In larger concentrations, the compound is poisonous – the same corrosive chemical used to eat away at clogged drains. The impact of cybersecurity attacks The incident is the latest example of how cybersecurity attacks can translate into real-world, physical security consequences – even deadly ones.Cybersecurity attacks on small municipal water systems have been a concern among security professionals for years. The computer system was set up to allow remote access only to authorized users. The source of the unauthorized access is unknown. However, the attacker was only in the system for 3 to 5 minutes, and an operator corrected the concentration back to 100 parts per million soon after. It would have taken a day or more for contaminated water to enter the system. In the end, the city’s water supply was not affected. There were other safeguards in place that would have prevented contaminated water from entering the city’s water supply, which serves around 15,000 residents. The remote access used for the attack was disabled pending an investigation by the FBI, Secret Service and Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. On Feb. 2, a compilation of breached usernames and passwords, known as COMB for “Compilation of Many Breaches,” was leaked online. COMB contains 3.2 billion unique email/password pairs. It was later discovered that the breach included the credentials for the Oldsmar water plant. Water plant attacks feared for years Cybersecurity attacks on small municipal water systems have been a concern among security professionals for years. Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio tweeted that the attempt to poison the water supply should be treated as a “matter of national security.” “The incident at the Oldsmar water treatment plant is a reminder that our nation’s critical infrastructure is continually at risk; not only from nation-state attackers, but also from malicious actors with unknown motives and goals,” comments Mieng Lim, VP of Product Management at Digital Defense Inc., a provider of vulnerability management and threat assessment solutions.The attack on Oldsmar’s water treatment system shows how critical national infrastructure is increasingly becoming a target for hackers as organizations bring systems online “Our dependency on critical infrastructure – power grids, utilities, water supplies, communications, financial services, emergency services, etc. – on a daily basis emphasizes the need to ensure the systems are defended against any adversary,” Mieng Lim adds. “Proactive security measures are crucial to safeguard critical infrastructure systems when perimeter defenses have been compromised or circumvented. We have to get back to the basics – re-evaluate and rebuild security protections from the ground up.” "This event reinforces the increasing need to authenticate not only users, but the devices and machine identities that are authorized to connect to an organization's network,” adds Chris Hickman, Chief Security Officer at digital identity security vendor Keyfactor. “If your only line of protection is user authentication, it will be compromised. It's not necessarily about who connects to the system, but what that user can access once they're inside. "If the network could have authenticated the validity of the device connecting to the network, the connection would have failed because hackers rarely have possession of authorized devices. This and other cases of hijacked user credentials can be limited or mitigated if devices are issued strong, crypto-derived, unique credentials like a digital certificate. In this case, it looks like the network had trust in the user credential but not in the validity of the device itself. Unfortunately, this kind of scenario is what can happen when zero trust is your end state, not your beginning point." “The attack on Oldsmar’s water treatment system shows how critical national infrastructure is increasingly becoming a target for hackers as organizations bring systems online for the first time as part of digital transformation projects,” says Gareth Williams, Vice President - Secure Communications & Information Systems, Thales UK. “While the move towards greater automation and connected switches and control systems brings unprecedented opportunities, it is not without risk, as anything that is brought online immediately becomes a target to be hacked.” Operational technology to mitigate attacks Williams advises organizations to approach Operational Technology as its own entity and put in place procedures that mitigate against the impact of an attack that could ultimately cost lives. This means understanding what is connected, who has access to it and what else might be at risk should that system be compromised, he says. “Once that is established, they can secure access through protocols like access management and fail-safe systems.”  “The cyberattack against the water supply in Oldsmar should come as a wakeup call,” says Saryu Nayyar, CEO, Gurucul.  “Cybersecurity professionals have been talking about infrastructure vulnerabilities for years, detailing the potential for attacks like this, and this is a near perfect example of what we have been warning about,” she says.  Although this attack was not successful, there is little doubt a skilled attacker could execute a similar infrastructure attack with more destructive results, says Nayyar. Organizations tasked with operating and protecting critical public infrastructure must assume the worst and take more serious measures to protect their environments, she advises. Fortunately, there were backup systems in place in Oldsmar. What could have been a tragedy instead became a cautionary tale. Both physical security and cybersecurity professionals should pay attention.

What Are The Positive And Negative Effects Of COVID-19 To Security?
What Are The Positive And Negative Effects Of COVID-19 To Security?

The COVID-19 global pandemic had a life-changing impact on all of us in 2020, including a multi-faceted jolt on the physical security industry. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see more clearly the exact nature and extent of that impact. And it’s not over yet: The pandemic will continue to be top-of-mind in 2021. We asked this week’s Expert Panel Roundtable: What have been the positive and negative effects of Covid-19 on the physical security industry in 2020? What impact will it have on 2021?

Expert Roundup: Healthy Buildings, Blockchain, AI, Skilled Workers, And More
Expert Roundup: Healthy Buildings, Blockchain, AI, Skilled Workers, And More

Our Expert Panel Roundtable is an opinionated group. However, for a variety of reasons, we are sometimes guilty of not publishing their musings in a timely manner. At the end of 2020, we came across several interesting comments among those that were previously unpublished. Following is a catch-all collection of those responses, addressing some of the most current and important issues in the security marketplace in 2021.