Beyond the warm and fuzzy factors, dogs have a long history of helping humans with their talented sense of smell that has been helpful for detecting hidden objects and people. To this end, dogs are still commonly used by security teams, police, and even militaries for guarding sensitive sites and uncovering contraband ranging from food and drugs to weapons and explosives. The case for using dogs has historically been an easy one to make.

However, as one moves into the digital age, many organizations are starting to look outside at new technological options for thinking about how to secure the flow of traffic at sites such as border crossings, air and seaports, embassies, and other facilities that face an increased risk of smuggling or attack.

Deployment of resources

Dogs can be used for scenarios moving from checking traffic to crowds and other kinds of situations

In hopes of gaining a better understanding of where dogs have the advantage over UVIS technology, and where the tech has them beat, UVeye decided to take a look at some of the pros and cons that come with using dogs as detection devices on four legs. Dogs can be used for different scenarios, moving from checking traffic to crowds and other kinds of use case situations.

While there may be some period of adjustment to new surroundings, a dog can be easily transported from one crossing point or facility to another, providing their team with flexibility when it comes to deployment of resources. Looking at the company’s checkpoint case where vehicles are moving through, the dogs have the advantage in that they can be used to not only sniff at the edges beneath the car, but also around the interior where more items might be hidden in doors or under seats.

Canine olfactory capabilities

Probably the biggest advantage that the dogs have in their column is that they are frankly the most well-known option in the market. They have so far managed to stay ahead of many of the “sniffer” systems that attempt to simulate the canine olfactory capabilities not so much by their own stellar performance, but by the poor showing of the competition.

Most of these devices have simply not advanced to the point where they are reliable enough for widespread adoption in either industry or government use. What the company sees in the field is that even as the dogs are considered to be the most commonly utilized option in the market, they have issues of their own that could impact their future in detection work.

Accuracy percentages

Strong smells like food, garbage, or even weather conditions can cover up the smell of the illicit items

The issues that can arise when working with dogs for detection purposes can basically be broken down into two categories - accuracy failures and logistical. Despite having the bloodhound reputation for their super sniffers, dogs have been shown to have a less than stellar record when it comes to their detection accuracy rates. Statistics out of Australia found that “in 74 percent of cases where a sniffer dog indicated the presence of drugs on someone, no drugs were subsequently found.”

Beyond the individual talents of each dog, which are trained to seek out specific materials (drugs, explosives, etc), external factors can also play a significant role in impacting their accuracy percentages. Strong smells like food, garbage, or even weather conditions can cover up the smell of the illicit items.

Long term investment

Logistical challenges such as the need to be in close proximity to a stationary vehicle slow down the number that can be inspected, often meaning that not every car or truck are inspected and that some are chosen at random. This opens the door to some percentage of illicit materials passing through. Weather and run of the mill exhaustion can also limit the amount of time that a dog can be active for inspections.

There are also pipeline supply issues that affect the number of dogs available in the field. It takes roughly two years to train a dog, during which many who start in the course are likely to drop out due to incompatibility. At a cost of $25,000 per dog plus additional lifetime upkeep, and multiple dogs needed per unit/site, plus extra training and pay for handlers, these critters can be a heavy long term investment for any organization.

Vehicle inspection innovations

As a one-time purchase, they lower the lifetime expenditures needed for vehicle inspections

Given these drawbacks, many organizations are on the lookout for new methods of inspecting vehicles. One of the technologies that has emerged in recent years is the under vehicle scanner (UVIS). Equipped with multiple cameras to capture high-quality images, which are then analyzed by artificial intelligence algorithms to detect anomalies that could be indicative of illicit materials, these systems come with a number of advantages over the furry friends.

As a one-time purchase, they lower the lifetime expenditures needed for vehicle inspections. Since they rely on automated systems to scan, detect, and alert when necessary, under vehicle scanners are capable of inspecting hundreds of vehicles an hour without compromising on the accuracy and quality of each inspection. Under vehicle scanner systems also offer an easy to understand user interface (UI) that simplifies the process for teams.

Imaging and detection

With the superior imaging and detection, users are able to clearly see what is has been identified on the scan, knowing where exactly to look. This means less guessing what the dog is trying to convey, and a faster validation of the potential threat that negates the need to get under the vehicle and perform a human-conducted search based solely on Rex’s hunch.

However, it is the dogs’ capacity for searching the interior of the vehicle that leads the experts to conclude that they will still have a role to play in the coming years while the rest of the detection technologies work to catch up.

Under vehicle scanners

Taking a step back though, the industry can assume that more organizations will begin to adopt under vehicle scanners, not as a full replacement for their existing measures, but as an important force multiplier, which adds to a comprehensive inspection operation that improves capabilities and helps professionals to achieve their security mission.

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.