Page 32 - Campus Security & Life Safety, May/June 2019

secured entry
32
campuslifesecurity.com | MAY/JUNE 2019
"Without question, one of the most vulnerable and critical points in a facility
Uis at the entry."
p until 20 years ago, the
word “security” might evoke the image of a night watchman, armored truck or closed-circuit video
camera wired to a VCR. The main entrance to all but the most secure government or sensitive facilities would encompass nothing more than a set of glass doors and perhaps a receptionist behind a desk visually checking ID cards.
Events between 1999 and 2001 changed those ideas forever. Within the first three years, the Enron scandal had provided impe- tus for the Sarbanes Oxley Act and all man- ner of compliance laws to follow; the ILOVEYOU computer worm introduced us all to the virus and cyber threats; and Sep- tember 11 redefined terrorism and ushered in a new age of security.
New Technologies for Better Security
Over the next several years, organizations began to put new strategies in place to address the need for greater safety and secu- rity. At the same time, as the internet and network capabilities matured, physical secu- rity evolved to tie in more closely with Infor- mation Technology, or IT, spurring the cre- ation of a new generation of digital technologies. These new networked security products produced a wealth of data, creating a need for software and personnel to collate, correlate and analyze it.
Among the new digital products most quickly adopted and deployed by every type of organization were IP video surveillance cameras. Security managers were already accustomed to using analog cameras on a closed-circuit network, and they quickly rec- ognized the value of the improved images and other potential advantages of the new digital approach. Although IT departments initially pushed back against the use of com- pany networks for video streams—they were rightly concerned with the integrity of the
By Tracie Thomas
The Evolution of Risk and Why You are More Vulnerable Today
Data is beginning to be a much more significant factor in prevention, prediction, response and analysis of criminal activity
network—both Security and IT soon agreed on methods to manage the increased traffic. And, because the new IP-based approach had so many advantages over the older ana- log approach, the shift from analog to IP was swift and unstoppable.
While video surveillance may have been one of the first solutions to make a migration from an older technology or approach to a new, more effective approach to security, there are other elements of physical and cybersecu- rity that are starting to recognize such chang- es are needed.
The Importance of Facility Entry Points
Without question, one of the most vulnera- ble and critical points in a facility is at the entry. Whether the concern is compliance, cybersecurity, terrorism, violence, theft or any of the hundreds of other risks facing businesses, it is of fundamental importance to secure any location where people can enter the facility. From a security perspec- tive, the objective is to keep any unauthor- ized individuals out of the building or off the campus. Further, within each building, the objective is to ensure that any individual division, area, wing or room can only be entered by those who are authorized to be in that place at that time.
As with video surveillance, the security industry’s approach to entry began to change with the recognition of a greater need for security and with the advent of the network. Better locks were developed, and access con- trol readers were placed at doors both outside and inside facilities, requiring a card swipe or tap to unlock the door. As the technology matured, the products became more sophisti- cated, with Wi-Fi locks, mobile credentials and biometrics among the developments.
Door Technology Needs a Security Upgrade
However, what has been slower to change is adoption of newer security door technolo- gies. The majority of facility doors, both exte-
rior and interior, are still standard swinging doors. There are many different form factors and types of locks for these doors, and the software that manages their locking and unlocking has become more advanced. How- ever, the doors themselves still work in the same way as they always have; when unlocked, they swing open and then closed again. They may close, and/or re-lock, auto- matically—but once they are open, there is no barrier to entry for one or more people.
Even if a door is held open for only a few seconds, it fully negates the security function of the doors, since multiple unauthorized individuals can enter this way. There are many ways this can happen. A person may slip quickly through behind another, while “pretending” to search for their ID card. One authorized individual can enter and pass their credentials back through the door for a second person to use. Or the door may sim- ply be held politely for the next person to pass through.
Placing security officers or installing tail- gating analytics technology at each entrance can help to mitigate these risks. However, guards can be misled by a false ID or a good story. For example, “white-hat” penetration testers have proven that a clean-cut man wearing khaki slacks and a polo shirt, carry- ing a ladder and a clipboard, and claiming to be there to provide some kind of mainte- nance, will almost always be allowed to enter without credentials. Further, most tailgating technology is reactive, alerting management only after the unauthorized person has already breached the facility.
As a result, even with better locks, soft- ware and access control, standard swinging doors present a shortfall when it comes to safety and security. It is the doors themselves that are the problem. In an environment where the need for better risk mitigation is clearly recognized, why have entry doors that lag behind other security approaches?
The primary reason is that entry has his-