Businesses, large and small, create data which needs protecting, whether in an onsite server room or co-located at a data center. When a business imagines a corporate data breach, they’re probably picturing black-hat hackers pursued by cybercrime investigators. The reality is often more mundane. Only around a half of breaches involve hacking, according to one recent report. Gaps in the physical security, the business’ data and servers are equally important targets.

Perhaps the company director leaves their laptop on the train. Or an unauthorized visitor spots open server racks and quickly downloads records onto his smartphone. Or maybe the server room access control is left entirely to lock-and-key technology which cannot be easily tracked.

Physical server security

Securing sensitive data needs the involvement of every member in an organization, from top to bottom. But physically protecting servers and data stores is the heart of the security and IT manager’s role.

How much could a data breach cost someone?

In the absence of appropriate physical server security, the mundane can be dangerous — and expensive. Recent research for IBM by the Ponemon Institute estimates the average total cost of a data breach at $3.86 million (€3.57 million). According to the same benchmark report, this average is rising, by 6.4% in the last year alone. Some of the highest breach costs are borne by companies in Europe, including Germany, France, Italy and the UK.

Unauthorized access

As Big Data gets bigger, so does the regulatory landscape for data handling

Such costs can be direct: in business disruption, lost mailing lists or disabled logistics software. They can be indirect: an erosion of customer trust and damaged “brand equity”. Hard-earned goodwill and positive reputations are quickly reversed. Costs also come from fines levied by government and supranational regulators. As Big Data gets bigger, so does the regulatory landscape for data handling.

The most relevant framework for those operating in the EMEA region is the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This wide-ranging data privacy rulebook has been enforced since May 2018. GDPR requires businesses to protect storage of all personal information, including customer and employee data. The business’ safeguards must include both electronic and physical barriers to unauthorized access. Server protection is critical.

Physical security for the servers

Does a company know who last accessed their servers, and when? If the answer to either question is “no”, the company is taking unnecessary risks with data security. Yet ensuring they stay on the regulators’ right side, and avoid a costly breach, could be straightforward: better access control.

To ensure maximum security of their servers, in its recent white paper ASSA ABLOY recommends three levels of security working together within an integrated access system.

Security management systems

  • Level 1 — perimeter security ensures only authorized personnel enter a data storage building. Here, door and gate electronic locks with credential readers can work alongside the likes of CCTV and monitored fencing. It’s a company’s first line of physical breach defense.
  • Level 2 — server room access can be monitored and controlled with a range of access control door devices with inbuilt credential readers, including Aperio battery-powered escutcheons or complete security locks. Either device integrates seamlessly with access and security management systems from over 100 different manufacturers. At room level, physical security must also include water- and dustproofing, electromagnetic security and protection against other physical threats to servers and data.
  • Level 3 — final level of physical data security is a company’s server rack or cabinet. Server rooms have a steady flow of authorized traffic: cleaners, maintenance staff, repair technicians and others. Employee screening cannot be perfect — and accidents happen. Rack or cabinet locking with RFID readers is the last line of defense against a malicious or accidental physical data breach.

Real-time access control

ASSA ABLOY’s Aperio KS100 adds real-time access control and monitoring to server racks and cabinets

ASSA ABLOY’s Aperio KS100 Server Cabinet Lock adds real-time access control and monitoring to server racks and cabinets. The lock works with an existing or new access control system; compatible credentials employ all standard RFID protocols including iCLASS, MIFARE and DESFire. Under the EU’s GDPR, the business must inform anyone affected by a breach “without undue delay”. With the Aperio KS100, the business would know right away if unauthorized access had even been attempted.

Once installed, KS100 locks integrate with the access control system and communicate wirelessly via an Aperio Communications Hub, even if the company’s racks are co-located in a distant data centre. Once online integration with the security admin system is complete, lock access decisions are communicated from and recorded by the company’s software wirelessly.

Data protection regulations

“When Aperio replaces mechanical locking at all three levels of server access control, lost keys no longer compromise data security. Lost credentials are simply deauthorized and a valid replacement reissued. The current status of any lock, at any level, is revealed with the click of a mouse. Generating detailed audit trails is straightforward, making the KS100 and other Aperio wireless locks invaluable for incident investigation”, explains Johan Olsén, Aperio Product Manager at ASSA ABLOY Opening Solutions EMEA.

The right electronic locking keeps the customer reputation intact, the business data off the Dark Web, and on the right side of the multiple data protection regulations, including GDPR.

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.