Access control and security entrance integration is a specialised discipline. It is true that security entrances require only a dry contact and can integrate with virtually any access control system, but there are some things to be considered when researching the right access control system for your organisation’s security goals.

After 21 years’ experience in the security industry—four of those serving as an advisor for security solutions to dozens of Fortune 1000 companies—and a Lenel certification, I’ve seen a lot when it comes to security entrances and access control systems. Based on that experience, here are three mistakes I’ve seen too many times that I hope I can help you avoid.

Mistake 1: Device placement

The placement of your access control device will not only affect the throughput of your entrance, but also its level of security or effectiveness at tailgating mitigation. If you are spending a significant amount of money on physical security entrances, you are going to want to know if your access control device is negatively impacting the entrance’s ability to provide the intended level of security.

Some of the placement mistakes I’ve observed where throughput and security were impacted: Access control system placement in the hallway. Believe it or not, placement of a device on a wall to the left side of the entrance vs. the right. Most of the world drives on the right side of the road. That’s intuitive for most users, and that is why authorised users enter our security revolving doors to the right. However, I have seen companies place the access control device on the LEFT side of a hallway, opposite the entry point of the door.

Unauthorised entry to buildings

Here’s an example to illustrate this mistake: It is lunchtime, many people are coming and going through a security revolving door. There is a large group of people exiting the door while I am trying to enter. I have to cross through that oncoming traffic to get to the card reader on the left side of the hallway, scan my badge, and then manoeuvre through traffic to get back to the entrance of the door on the right side. This is far from an ideal set up for efficient throughput. There is also the chance that while I’m trying to make my way through traffic after authorisation, someone else could jump into the door and make it through. What if that “someone else” was a person intent on doing harm?

The faster the access control device, the higher probability of a false acceptance
Faster access control devices could mean that there is a greater probability of the device saying someone is authorised when they are not

Another placement mistake is distance of the device from the entrance. Let’s stick with the picture we have of the security revolving door in the hallway. The access control device is mounted on the right side of the hallway, BUT the device is 10 feet from the entrance of the door. That’s a lapse of several seconds between the access control device and the security entrance. During a busy time of day, like lunch, someone could march straight past the person who just authorised and enter through the door. Again, if this isn’t someone with credentials, you could have a serious problem on your hands.

Mistake 2: Speed of activation is too high

The faster the access control device, the higher probability of a false acceptance, or the device saying that someone is authorised when they really aren’t. When you think about it simply, any time that we as humans try to do something faster and faster, quality tends to suffer. The same is true of an access control device. There is a biometric device technology on the market that only requires a person to wave their hand through for authentication—no more actually placing your hand on the device for its geometry to be verified. While this significantly increases the throughput of the entrance, there is a greater probability of the device saying someone is authorised when they are not. Are you willing to take that risk?

Verification on the fly

In order to speed throughput, lately we have heard of “verification on the fly” systems that recognise facial features as a person is walking up to the device. Manufacturers of these devices tout that their technology can recognise a specific face among a crowd from 15 feet away or more. While this is great technology, it isn’t really taking off because there is much room for error. To achieve the activation speed advertised, you’d be risking a higher level of false acceptance. Also, if three people approach and one is authorised, the entrance will unlock, but who is actually entering?

The best way to ensure the right person passes through the entrance is to use two-factor authentication

The best way to ensure the right person passes through the entrance is to use two-factor authentication. You could have the facial recognition device to start with, but you’d need to add a secondary reader right at the door to confirm that the same, authorised user is the one getting in.

Mistake 3: Not intuitive for users

So, when is intuitive use not very intuitive? There are two areas: Sophisticated devices and hidden placement. Is the access control device something that your employees will know how to use intuitively, like a card swipe reader? Or is it something that will require training, like an iris scanner or BLE reader? This does require achieving a balance. We know that card readers are low-tech and someone wanting to inflict harm can easily steal a badge and gain access. But, is the device so complex that your staff just won’t get it? Is the technology too new? Too new that it hasn’t been tried and tested?

Secondly, where is the device placed? Is it underneath a black piece of glass, hidden from view? Is it on the left side of the hallway when someone is expecting to see it on the right? Placement must be as close to intuitive as possible.

Access control systems and security entrances go hand-in-hand in preventing tailgating and unauthorised entry. It is crucial to think hard about which access control device you need, how best to install it, and whether it will it function appropriately to meet your organisation’s unique security goals.

Download PDF version

Author Profile

Kurt Measom Vice President, Technology and Product Support, Boon Edam

In case you missed it

Drawbacks of PenTests and ethical hacking for the security industry
Drawbacks of PenTests and ethical hacking for the security industry

PenTesting, also known as “ethical hacking” or “white-hat hacking,” has always been viewed as the “sexy” side of cybersecurity, a task that is far more exciting than monitoring systems for intrusions, shoring up defenses, or performing compliance audits. Numerous security conferences are devoted to the fine art of attempting to hack into systems – with an owner’s full knowledge and permission – and reporting on the results. At an organisational level within businesses, they also value PenTesting under the premise that it allows them to identify security vulnerabilities before cyber criminals can. There are some regulatory requirements like PCI-DSS that require penetration assessments as part of their PCI compliance. However, many organisations have come to over-rely on PenTesting, thinking that if all the issues were identified in a PenTest, they’re good to go. Not only is this not helping them improve their security posture, it is also leaving them with a false sense of security. A penetration test is a simulated, live attack on your environment by a white-hat hacker What is PenTesting? A penetration test is a simulated, live attack on your environment by a white-hat hacker, customised to address specific problem areas, such as web-based applications, mobile applications and infrastructure services like border VPNs and firewalls. The PenTest may include different types of attacks based on the requested scope from an organisation so that the tester attempts to come at each system from all sides, the way a cyber-criminal would. The goal is to identify which systems and data the tester was able to access and how an organisation can address the vulnerabilities that allowed them to get in. The limitations of PenTesting There is great value in performing periodic PenTests, which is why PCI DSS and other security standards mandate them. However, PenTesting has three significant limitations: PenTesting does not provide solutions Let’s be honest: No one likes reading technical reports, but typically, that's the only deliverable provided by a PenTester. The value of a PenTesting report varies wildly based on the scope of the testing, the PenTester’s technical expertise and their writing ability. The tester may miss some things, or not clearly convey their findings. Additionally, a PenTest is a snapshot in time and the PenTester could miss changes in the systems, configurations, attack vectors and application environments. Even if your system “passes” a PenTest, will it crumble in the face of a brand new, more powerful attack vector that emerges a week later? The worst type of “PenTest report” consist of an analyst producing nothing more than the results of a vulnerability scan. Even if the PenTester produces a well-written, comprehensive report filled with valuable, actionable information, it’s up to your organisation to take the action, which leads to the next limitation of PenTesting. The value of a PenTesting report varies wildly based on the scope of the testing, the PenTester’s technical expertise and their writing ability PenTesters only exploit vulnerabilities and do not promote change PenTesting does not highlight the missing links in your organisation's technology stack that could help you address your security vulnerabilities. This is often in the guise of being agnostic to the technologies that exist because their expertise is only offensive security – unless, of course, the performing company has “magic software” to sell you. PenTests also do not help to develop your organisational processes. Additionally, they do not ensure that your employees have the knowledge and training needed to treat the identified fixes. Worst of all, if your in-house expertise is limited, any security issues that are identified during a PenTest aren't validated, which leads to a misrepresentation of their magnitude and severity while giving your team a false sense of security. PenTesters are self-serving Too often, PenTesting pits the assessment team against the organisation; the goal of the assessment team is to find the best way to "shame" the business into remediation, purchasing the testing company’s “magic software”, then call it a day. Once the PenTesters find, for example, a privilege escalation or a way to breach PII, they stop looking for other issues. The testers then celebrate the success of finding a single “flag”. In the meantime, the business is left in a precarious situation, since other unidentified issues may be lurking within their systems. Shifting the paradigm of PenTesting The goal of PenTesters is to find the best way to "shame" the business into purchasing the testing company’s “magic software”, then call it a day Penetration testing can uncover critical security vulnerabilities, but it also has significant limitations and it’s not a replacement for continuous security monitoring and testing. This is not to say that all PenTesting is bad. PenTesting should be integrated into a comprehensive threat and vulnerability management programme so that identified issues are addressed. The purpose of a mature vulnerability management programme is to identify, treat and monitor any identified vulnerabilities over its lifecycle. Vulnerability management programme Additionally, a vulnerability management programme requires the multiple teams within an organisation to develop and execute on the remediation plan to address the vulnerability. A mature threat and vulnerability management plan takes time and is helpful to partner with a managed security services provider (MSSP) to help you in the following areas: Improve your cyber-risk management program so that you can identify and efficiently address vulnerabilities in your infrastructure, applications and other parts within your organisation’s ecosystem on a continuous basis; Perform retests to validate any problems identified through a vulnerability scan or a PenTest assessment; Ensure that your in-house staff has the knowledge, skills and tools they need to respond to incidents. Cyber risk management and remediation is a "team sport." While periodic testing conducted by an external consultant satisfies compliance requirements, it is not a replacement for continuous in-house monitoring and testing. To ensure that your systems are secure, you must find a partner who not only performs PenTesting but also has the engineering and development experience to assist you in fixing these types of complex problems in a cost-effective manner and ensuring that your systems are hardened against tomorrow’s attacks.

Has the gap closed between security fiction and security reality?
Has the gap closed between security fiction and security reality?

Among its many uses and benefits, technology is a handy tool in the fantasy world of movie and television thrillers. We all know the scene: a vital plot point depends on having just the right super-duper gadget to locate a suspect or to get past a locked door. In movies and TV, face recognition is more a super power than a technical function. Video footage can be magically enhanced to provide a perfect image of a license plate number. We have all shaken our heads in disbelief, and yet, our industry’s technical capabilities are improving every day. Are we approaching a day when the “enhanced” view of technology in movies and TV is closer to the truth? We asked this week’s Expert Panel Roundtable: How much has the gap closed between the reality of security system capabilities and what you see on TV (or at the movies)?

How moving to Security as a Service benefits both providers and end users
How moving to Security as a Service benefits both providers and end users

The way we purchase services and products is changing. The traditional concept of buying and owning a product is giving way to the idea that it is possible to purchase the services it offers instead. This approach has come from the consumer realisation that it is the outcome that is important rather than the tools to achieve it. For example, this approach is evident with the rise of music streaming services as opposed to downloads or physical products.   With the physical security industry becoming ever more integrated – and truly open systems now a reality – there is every reason to assume this service-lead trend will come to dominate the way our industry interacts with its clients as well. Interest in service-based security There is a significant change of mindset that the security industry needs to embrace before a large-scale move to Security as a Service can take place. Like many technology sectors in the past, security providers have focussed on ‘shifting boxes’ as their definitive sales model. This approach was especially prevalent when proprietary systems were the mainstay of the security industry. Essentially, if the customer wanted more services they simply bought a new product. This was a straightforward and economic sales approach for manufacturers and installers alike.The security industry needs to embrace a change of mindset before a move to SaaS can take place The flexibility of integrated and open technology has changed the way consumers view their purchase, so it shouldn’t be any surprise that there is increased interest in a service-based approach. Customer choice equates to a change of focus and interest, with physical products being eclipsed by the benefits of the overall solution. We have already seen these changes in other technology areas, notably with smart devices and general IT systems. Cloud-based services put the onus on the result rather than which device the user chooses. This approach is even starting to manifest in areas that couldn’t have been predicted in the past, such as the car industry for example. Consumers are focusing more on the overall costs and convenience of buying a car over the specific specification of the vehicle. Equally, urban dwellers don’t necessarily want the hassle and expense of owning and parking their own vehicle anymore. If you don’t use it every day, it can make more sense to rent a vehicle only when you travel beyond public transport. For these consumers the car has become a service item for a specific journey. Benefits for end users At the heart of this approach is the simple equation that consumers have a need and suppliers need to provide the most cost-effective, and easiest, solution. At the same time, the security operator may not necessarily want to know (or care) what specification the system has, they just want it to perform the task as required.   By discussing with consumers, we can ensure we work even more closely with them to provide the expert support they need and deserve Most security buyers will identify the specific business needs and their budget to achieve this. This is where a service approach really comes into its own. Customers need expert advice on a solution for their requirements which takes away the stress of finding the right products/systems. In the past there was always a risk of purchasing an unsuitable solution, which could potentially be disastrous. The other issue was having to budget for a big capital expenditure for a large installation and then having to find further resources once an upgrade was due when systems went end of life. Most businesses find it far easier to pay a sensible monthly or annual fee that is predictable and can easily be budgeted for. A service model makes this far easier to achieve. Benefits of a service sales model As well as the benefits for end users, there are considerable benefits for security providers too. Rather than simply ‘shifting boxes’ and enduring the inevitable sales peaks and toughs this creates; a service sales model allows manufacturers and installers to enjoy a more stable business model. You don’t have to win new business with every product, but rather sell ongoing services for a set period. Its highly likely that the whole security industry will start to take this approach over the next few years. Manufacturers are already well aware of this shift in customer expectations and are changing their approach to meet demands.There are major opportunities on offer in return for a change of perspective in the security industry With the service and leasing approach already firmly entrenched in other industries, this is well proven in a consumer market. The airline industry is a great example. Manufacturers understand that airlines need flexibility to upscale and downscale operations and therefore whole aircraft and even individual key components (such as engines or seating) can be leased as required. Using this approach, airlines can concentrate on what customers demand and not worry about the logistics of doing this. Manufacturers and leasing businesses provide assurances and guarantees of service time for aircraft and engines, taking care of the servicing and maintenance to ensure this delivery. This approach is just as well suited for the provision of security systems. Servicing the future security market Undoubtedly there are major opportunities on offer in return for a change of perspective in the security industry. However, this will involve substantial changes in some quarters to ensure the business model is aligned with the market. Overall, the security industry needs to not only develop the right systems for the market, but also to deliver them in the right way as well. This will ensure we work even more closely with customers to provide the expert support they need and deserve.