Until a few years ago, physical and IT security were handled as two separate universes. On the one hand, surveillance, cameras, access. On the other, firewalls, antivirus, passwords and encryption. <\/p>\n
But today, with the adoption of digital technologies in physical security systems (IP cameras, cloud access control, IoT, AI, PSIM), these two worlds are rapidly converging<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Yet, in many companies, convergence is more of a challenge than a reality. When physical systems become “smart,” they also become vulnerable to digital threats<\/strong>. In parallel, cybercriminals try to physically compromise the network (e.g., by accessing a CED room) or use physical attacks to install malware<\/strong> via USB sticks or abusive access.<\/p>\n It is not just about efficiency. It is about operational survival. <\/strong><\/p>\n When physical security and IT don’t work together, it opens up “gray areas” that are an attacker’s paradise<\/strong>. Here are the most prevalent risks: <\/p>\n Many cameras, badges, or sensors communicate over unsegmented or poorly secured networks, often without strong encryption or authentication. They can be entry points for a cyber attack. <\/p>\n A physical alert (forced door, attempted access) may not be related to a simultaneous cyber attack if the two systems are not communicating. This lengthens response time and complicates investigation. <\/p>\n In the event of an incident, no one knows who should intervene: IT or physical security? This delay can cost dearly in terms of damage, reputation and penalties. <\/p>\n Many regulations (e.g., GDPR, ISO 27001, NIS2) require holistic security management. If the physical part is not adequately protected or documented, you risk fines and litigation. <\/p>\n A control room is needed that unites IT, physical security, compliance, and management. Every connected physical device must follow the same rules as IT:<\/p>\n Connecting the physical platform (PSIM) with the information technology platform (SIEM) enables:<\/p>\n Incident responses need to be unique. Not two separate response plans, but one playbook<\/strong>, accounting for hybrid (physical + cyber) attacks and defining who does what. <\/p>\n Those in IT need to understand physical security, and vice versa. In reality, an attack is never just “cyber” or just “physical.” That is why today the convergence of cybersecurity and physical security is not a technical choice, but a strategic choice.<\/strong><\/p>\n Only by integrating governance, technologies, skills, and data can we build more resilient, smarter, and protected companies. How to integrate two worlds for truly effective protection Until a few years ago, physical and IT security were handled as two separate universes. On the one hand, surveillance, cameras, access. On the other, firewalls, antivirus, passwords and encryption. But today, with the adoption of digital technologies in physical security systems (IP cameras, cloud access…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":908,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[32,35,36],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1453","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-business-intelligence","category-security","category-technology"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\nIn this article we explain why the integration of physical and cybersecurity is now necessary<\/strong>, what real risks<\/strong> to avoid, and how to build an integrated operating model<\/strong> that really works.<\/p>\nWhy physical security and cybersecurity can no longer be separated<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\nHere are some concrete examples:<\/p>\n\n
The real risks of non-convergence<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
How to create effective operational convergence<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
\nAn integrated security committee<\/strong> can help define common policies, cross-cutting goals, and shared processes.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nNeed a shared security culture.
\nTraining, simulations, and tabletop exercises must involve both teams.<\/p>\nConclusion: one security, for one risk<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\nIt is hybrid, silent, and transverse<\/strong>.<\/p>\n
\nNot two teams. One security. <\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"