It’s not hard to see why more and more locations are requesting security solutions that operate on an open system. Selecting products and platforms that utilise open standards—Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), HTTP, IEEE, RESTful APIs, etc.—provide additional levels of interoperability, scalability and versatility that give organisations the flexibility they want to be proactive with safety and security.

Unfortunately, creating the right solution today isn’t quite as simple as reading a product sheet or specification. In the past, end users frequently were forced to pick hardware and software products that were proprietary to each individual manufacturer, meaning pieces of technology often didn’t have the ability to talk and interact with products that didn’t also carry its brand name.

In the future, all systems likely will be open in some form and will provide a litany of connectivity options with little-to-no additional development time and resources.

But until that day is here, it is important to manage the expectations for stakeholders involved with the project appropriately, knowing that the current security landscape has not yet evolved to the point that all systems are truly open.

The current security space can resemble its past almost as much as its future

Consumer technology expectations

To be fair, the end user’s expectations are often set by what they see happening with consumer technology and not by what is currently available in the security marketplace. There, technological advancements can seem to happen overnight. The apps on your smartphone, for instance, perform almost instantaneous updates, even while you are not actively using it.

As convenient as that may be with social media or gaming apps, this also can signal a system that regularly requires fixes and patches, a scenario that would not provide stakeholders with the advanced level of reliability that is demanded for adequate safety with commercial security products, in large part because it will expose locations to numerous liability issues. As a result, the current security space can resemble its past almost as much as its future.

Decreased potential for compatibility

Make no mistake, there are certainly many products available today that can easily integrate into open platforms, only in a more limited capacity. An IP desk phone, for example, could easily connect to another IP PBX system that can then place basic calls.

But as the customer’s demand for additional sophisticated options increases—diagnostics, event triggers, location identification, etc.—the potential for compatibility decreases. When it comes to security, this is due to the fact that two products or systems rarely expose similar functionality using the same technology or language.

Take this example, for instance: Manufacturer A sells a product that contains Features X and Y; Manufacturer B offers one with Y and Z. The customer therefore assumes - or may even be sold - a solution where X, Y and Z can all be configured.

Pairing the two may give you interoperability with Feature Y fairly easily (if they are implemented the same way), but X and Z will not happen without an additional investment that may be difficult to procure.

Set end user expectations when specifying an integrated security solution
It benefits all parties to have a common understanding of the project from the very beginning

Many manufacturers offer a list of ‘integration partners’ they are compatible with, but may not match the end user’s expectations

Meeting end user expectations

The devil, however, is in the details, a message that isn’t always effectively communicated to end users. Excusing it all off with the old idiom ‘It’s all Greek to me’ only sets up the project for potentially expensive revisions later on – costs that the integrator often has to eat. Therefore, it benefits all parties to have a common understanding of the project from the very beginning.

Given the current state of the consumer marketplace, it is vital for integrators to understand the reality of the products they are considering before seeking out potential solutions.

Many manufacturers offer a list of ‘integration partners’ they are compatible with, but these scenarios will carry a predefined scope that may not match the end user’s expectations.

Assessing compatibility 

To understand the full options available, a copy of a manufacturer’s Software Development Kit (SDK) needs to be requested, which should include detailed information about the possibilities for integrations with their products.

A third-party development firm or contractor is fully capable of providing the same level of work as the manufacturer

From there, you can compare the devices being considered to see how compatible they are with one another. Finally, it is important to consider the practical implications of financing. If the end user is seeking features that are not currently possible, then additional development will need to be contracted in order to make it happen.

Some manufacturers offer design services with developers who are acclimated to their platforms that can help expedite the learning curve.

However, with the right SDK and a background in the platforms being used, a third-party development firm or contractor is fully capable of providing the same level of work as the manufacturer.

Software Development Kit includes detailed information about the possibilities for integrations with their products
To understand the full options available, a copy of a manufacturer’s Software Development Kit (SDK) needs to be requested

Considerations for security system integration

To reiterate, any integration, no matter the scope, requires you to consider the following three questions:

  1. What does the end user want?
  2. What can the products do today?
  3. How can you bridge the gap?  

It is imperative that both integrators and end users take the time to do the homework required with those three key questions to ensure they are selecting a solution that will not only work tomorrow, but also provides an appropriate layer of protection for people and assets today.

Each party involved in an integration project needs to understand what exactly is available from a hardware and software standpoint

This also should help mitigate any confusion or frustration that may be experienced by the customer. As much as we all would like to believe that each and every feature available is a viable option that simply isn’t feasible given the realities we face today.

There will come a day when the technological advancements enjoyed by consumers around the world provide the type of experience that can be applied to security.

Until that time arrives, though, each party involved in the project needs to understand what exactly is currently available from a hardware and software standpoint. The safety of everyone at that location depends on it.

Download PDF version

Author profile

In case you missed it

Enhance traditional security systems within your smart home
Enhance traditional security systems within your smart home

Market dynamics are changing the U.S. residential security market, creating new business models that better appeal to the approximately 70% of households without a security system. Smart home adjacencies have helped revitalise the traditional security industry, and alternative approaches to systems and monitoring for the security industry are emerging, including a new batch of DIY systems. Growth in the residential security market and its position as the channel for smart home solutions have attracted numerous new entrants. Telecoms, cable operators, and CE (consumer electronics) manufacturers are joining traditional security players as they compete to fulfill consumer demand for safety and security. Connected products also provide a layer of competition as consumers must decide whether having category devices such as doorbell video cameras, networked cameras, and other products suffice for their security. Increasingly competitive landscape Smart home services can provide additional revenue streams for the security industry For instance, IP cameras are a highly popular smart home device rooted in security, and Parks Associates estimates 7.7 million standalone and all-in-one networked/IP cameras will be sold in the U.S. in 2018, with $889M in revenues. Product owners may feel their security needs are fulfilled with this single purchase, as such dealers and service providers are under increasing pressure to communicate their value proposition to consumers. Categorically, each type of player is facing competition uniquely—national, regional, and local dealers all have a different strategy for overcoming the increasingly competitive landscape. Smart home services can provide additional revenue streams for the security industry. In Parks Associates’ 2017 survey of U.S. security dealers, 58% report that smart home service capabilities enable extra monthly revenue. Almost half of dealers also note they have to offer smart home devices and services in order to keep up with their competition. While white-label devices are acceptable in some instances, dealers need to integrate with hero products whenever possible when those exist for a category. For dealers who have added smart home devices and services are all potential benefits and good for business Improved customer engagement That 2017 survey also revealed 36% of security dealers that offer interactive services report security system sales with a networked camera and 16% report sales with a smart thermostat. For dealers who have added smart home devices and services, enhanced system utility, increased daily value, and improved customer engagement with the system are all potential benefits and good for business. Security has served as the most productive channel for smart home solutions, mainly because the products create natural extensions of a security system’s functions and benefits, but as smart home devices, subsystems, and controllers expand their functionality, availability, and DIY capabilities, many standalone devices constitute competition to classical security. Particularly viable substitute devices include IP cameras, smart door locks, smart garage doors, or a combination of these devices. Products that are self-installed offer both convenience and cost savings, and these drivers are significant among DIY consumers—among the 6% of broadband households that installed a security system themselves, 39% did it to save money. Enhance traditional security Self-installable smart home devices may resonate with a segment of the market who want security While many security dealers believe substitute offerings are a threat, some dealers do not find such devices an existential threat but instead view them as another path to consumer awareness. They argue that the difference between smart product substitutes and traditional security is that of a solution that provides knowledge versus a system that gives one the ability to act on that knowledge. A common theme among professional monitoring providers is that a homeowner who is aware of events happening in the home does not necessarily have a secure and protected household. For example, a Nest camera, a DIY product, notifies a consumer via smartphone about events in the home when it detects motion, but only when the notification is opened and identified will a consumer be able to act on the related event. Self-installable smart home devices may resonate with a segment of the market who want security but are unwilling to adopt professional monitoring; however, providers can leverage these devices to enhance traditional security features and communicate the value of professional monitoring. Smart home devices and features, while posing a threat to some security companies, are a potential way forward to increased market growth Increased market growth A key counterstrategy for security dealers and companies is to leverage their current, powerful role as the prime channel for smart home devices. Many security dealers now include smart home devices with their security systems to complement their offerings and increase system engagement. For example, as of Q4 2017, nearly 70% of U.S. broadband households that were very likely to purchase a security system in the next 12 months reported that they want a camera to be included as part of their security system purchase. In response, many security system providers now offer IP cameras as optional enhancements for their systems. Smart home devices and features, while posing a threat to some security companies, are a potential way forward to increased market growth. Security dealers have an opportunity to become more than a security provider but a smart home solutions provider rooted in safety. Provide status updates Comcast has entered both the professionally monitored security market and the market for smart home services The alternative is to position as a provider of basic security with low price as the key differentiator. Comcast has entered both the professionally monitored security market and the market for smart home services independent of security. It has discovered that monetising smart home value propositions through recurring revenue becomes increasingly challenging as the value extends further away from life safety. Since the security industry remains the main channel for smart home services, security dealers are in a unique position to leverage that strength. Value propositions must shift from the traditional arming and disarming of a system to peace-of-mind experiences that builds off the benefits of smart devices in the home to provide status updates (e.g., if the kids arrived home safely) and monitoring at will (e.g., checking home status at any time to see a pet or monitor a package delivery). These types of clear value propositions and compelling use cases, which resonate with consumer and motivate them to expand beyond standalone products, will help expand the home security market.

What is the value of "free" video management systems?
What is the value of "free" video management systems?

They say that every choice has a cost. It's a basic principle that, economically speaking, nothing is free. If it doesn't cost actual money, it may be expensive in terms of time, attention and/or effort. These are interesting observations to keep in mind as one peruses the various "free" video management system (VMS) offerings available on the market. Some are provided by camera companies to unify their products into a "system", even if it's a small one. Other free VMS offerings are entry-level versions offered by software companies with the intent of the customer upgrading later to a paid version. For more insights, we asked this week's Expert Panel Roundtable: What is the value of “free” video management systems (VMSs) and how can a customer decide whether “free” is the right price for them?

The ongoing challenge of IT and data risk management
The ongoing challenge of IT and data risk management

Managing IT and data risk is a challenging job. When we outsource our IT, applications and data processing to third-parties more and more every day, managing that risk becomes almost impossible. No longer are our data and systems contained within an infrastructure that we have full control over. We now give vendors our data, and allow them to conduct operations on our behalf.  The problem is, we don’t control their infrastructure, and we can never fully look under the hood to understand and vet their ability to protect our data and operations. We have to fully understand how important this issue is, and ensure we have the right governance, processes and teams to identify and mitigate any risks found in our vendors. No longer are our data and systems contained within an infrastructure that we have full control over Today, everything is connected. Our own networks have Internet of Things (IoT) devices.  We have VPN connections coming in, and we aren’t always sure who is on the other end of that connection. It is a full-time job just to get a handle on our own risk. How much harder, and how much larger should our teams and budgets be, to truly know and trust that our vendors can secure those devices and external connections?  For every device and application we have internally, it is very difficult to even keep an accurate inventory. Do all of our vendors have some special sauce that allows them to overcome the traditional challenges of securing internal and vendor-connected networks? They are doing the same thing we are – doing our best with the limited human and financial resources allocated by our organisation. Risk stratification and control objectives  The benefits of outsourcing operations or using a vendor web application are clear. So how can we properly vet those vendors from an IT risk perspective?  The very first thing we need to put in place is Risk Stratification. Risk Stratification presents a few targeted questions in the purchasing process. These questions include – what type of data will be shared? How much of this data? Will the data be hosted by a vendor? Will this hosting be in the US or offshored? Has the vendor ever had a data breach? These questions allow you to quickly discern if a risk assessment is needed and if so, what depth and breadth.  Risk stratification allows you to make decisions that not only improve your team’s efficiency, but also ensure that you are not being a roadblock to the business Risk stratification allows you to make decisions that not only improve your team’s efficiency, but also ensure that you are not being a roadblock to the business. With risk stratification, you can justify the extra time needed to properly assess a vendor’s security.  And in the assessment of a vendor’s security, we have to consider what control objectives we will use. Control objectives are access controls, policies, encryption, etc. In healthcare, we often use the HITRUST set of control objectives. In assessing against those control objectives, we usually use a spreadsheet.  Today, there are many vendors who will sell us more automated ways to get that risk assessment completed, without passing spreadsheets back and forth. These solutions are great if you can get the additional budget approved.  Multi-factor authentication  Even if we are using old-fashioned spreadsheets, we can ensure that the questions asked of the vendor include a data flow and network/security architecture document.  We want to see the SOC2 report if they are hosting their solution in Amazon, etc. If they are hosting it within their own datacentre, we absolutely want to see a SOC2 Type II report. If they haven’t done that due diligence, should that be a risk for you?  Today, we really need to be requiring our vendors to have multi-factor authentication on both their Internet-facing access, as well as their privileged internal access to our sensitive data. I rate those vendors who do not have this control in place as a high risk. We’ve recently seen breaches that were able to happen because the company did not require administrators or DBAs to use a 2-factor authentication into sensitive customer data sources.  In the assessment of a vendor’s security, one has to consider what control objectives to use This situation brings up the issue of risk acceptance. Who in your organisation can accept a high risk? Are you simply doing qualitative risk assessment – high, medium and low risks? Or are you doing true quantitative risk analysis? The latter involves actually quantifying those risks in terms of likelihood and impact of a risk manifesting, and the dollar amount that could impact your organisation.   So is it a million dollars of risk? Who can accept that level of risk? Just the CEO? These are questions we need to entertain in our risk management programs, and socialised within your organisation.  This issue is so important – once we institute risk acceptance, our organisation suddenly starts caring about the vendors and applications we’re looking to engage.  If they are asked to accept a risk without some sort of mitigation, they suddenly care and think about that when they are vetting future outsourced solutions. Quantitative risk analysis involves quantifying risks in terms of likelihood and impact of a risk manifesting Risk management process  In this discussion, it is important to understand how we think of, and present, the gaps we identify in our risk management processes. A gap is not a risk. If I leave my front door unlocked, is that a control gap or a risk? It is a gap – an unlocked door. What is the risk?  The risk is the loss of property due to a burglary or the loss of life due to a violent criminal who got in because the door was unlocked. When we present risks, we can’t say the vendor doesn’t encrypt data. The risk of the lack of encryption is fines, loss of reputation, etc. due to the breach of data. A gap is not a risk.  Once we’ve conducted our risk analysis, we must then ensure that our contracts protect our organisation? If we’re in healthcare, we must determine if the vendor is, in fact, a true HIPAA Business Associate, and if so we get a Business Associate Agreement (BAA) in place. I also require my organisation to attach an IT Security Amendment to these contracts. The IT Security Amendment spells out those control objectives, and requires each vendor to sign off on those critical controls. We are responsible for protecting our organisation’s IT and data infrastructure – today that often means assessing a 3rd-party’s security controls One final note on risk assessments – we need to tier our vendors. We tier them in different ways – in healthcare a Tier 1 vendor is a vendor who will have our patient information on the Internet. Tiering allows us to subject our vendors to re-assessment. A tier 1 vendor should be re-assessed annually, and may require an actual onsite assessment vs. a desk audit. A tier 2 vendor is re-assessed every 2 years, etc. We are responsible for protecting our organisation’s IT and data infrastructure – today that often means assessing a 3rd-party’s security controls. We must be able to fully assess our vendors while not getting in the way of the business, which needs to ensure proper operations, financial productivity and customer satisfaction. If we truly understand our challenge of vendor risk management, we can tailor our operations to assess at the level needed, identify and report on risks, and follow-up on any risks that needed mitigated.