CSOs count on video surveillance systems to keep an eye on all areas of their facility, employees, visitors, and equipment, and they need those systems to stay online and functional. In the past, video streams in analog surveillance systems followed distinct, closed paths from cameras to coaxial cables to VCRs. Under this closed surveillance model, if video could be viewed on a monitor, there was little or no doubt that it was also being recorded for later review.
Almost daily there is a new cyber-threat announced, and increasingly they target physical security. A recent Fortinet survey showed that over 50% of CISO’s said their greatest security challenge is the rapid evolution of cyber threats. This should be no surprise, as cybercrime has damaged revenues and reputations at many well-known organizations. In a study from the Ponemon Institute in October 2016 they found the average cost of cybercrime for a company to be $9.5M (up 21% from their 2015 study). It’s pretty clear that cyber-attacks using or manipulating physical security systems are increasing in cost, frequency, and urgency.
On a Tuesday morning in 2001, it became very clear that many of our fundamental perceptions about how to conduct business would have to change, especially with regard to security. Since that day the development of new security technologies has accelerated at a rapid pace along with our expectations that people, property and assets will be protected. Lagging behind that added protection is the security of the security systems themselves; more than ever they offer cyber-criminals opportunities to compromise an organization.
Security integrators looking to grow their recurring monthly revenue (RMR) can achieve this with solutions to automatically verify and diagnose failures in physical security systems. Such solutions are already providing new avenues of business growth and profitability for many integrators.
Data protection has been in the news a lot recently; not only the issues around hacking and malware, but perhaps more importantly on the issues of how data is handled within (and across) organizations. In 2018 the EU will have the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) go into effect, covering millions of people’s personal information. As shown in this chart from DLA Piper, much of the world today is covered by either “heavy” or “robust” data protection. To pull one number out of many to make the point, the State of California alone has over 25 data privacy and governance laws.
RMR is the new lifeblood for security integration companies. Adding services to an equipment or system installation ensures consistent, predictable income well beyond the hardware’s deployment.
Even if you’ve never played “Whack-A-Mole” you’ve probably heard it used as a metaphor for a repetitious and futile task. In maintaining and servicing physical security systems there are a number of manual operations that fall in that category that are better done with automation; checking that default passwords aren’t being used, verifying operational status across multiple sites and/or device vendors, and maintaining an inventory of devices on the physical security network just to name a few. Since there are more than one “Whack-A-Mole” situations our industry deals with I’ll be more specific – the topic of this blog is a situation Viakoo calls “Console Madness”. If you want to stop reading and just see our new infographic on Console Madness please click here – otherwise continue on to see the Madness I’m referring to.
Fact: Organizations across many industries are subject to government and other regulations and must demonstrate physical security compliance on a regular basis.
Every organization has differences in how they accomplish their job, which can be thought of as tradeoffs. Restaurant A might choose to open early for breakfast, trading off the additional employee expenses for ability to gain higher revenues and profits. Restaurant B, considering whether to serve breakfast may decide against it because while it might be profitable it goes against their brand image as the “dinner” place. No one would accuse either restaurant of a bad decision, just a difference in how they decide to run their business and the tradeoffs they make.