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

What characteristics do salespeople require in the physical security industry?
What characteristics do salespeople require in the physical security industry?

A basic tenet of sales is ABC – always be closing. But it's a principle that most professional salespeople would say oversimplifies the process. Especially in a sophisticated, high-tech market such as physical security, the required sales skills are much more involved and nuanced. We asked this week's Expert Panel Roundtable: What unique characteristics are required of salespeople in the arena of physical security systems?

Can microchip implants replace plastic cards in modern access control?
Can microchip implants replace plastic cards in modern access control?

A futuristic alternative to plastic cards for access control and other applications is being considered by some corporate users in Sweden and the United Kingdom. The idea involves using a microchip device implanted into a user’s hand. About the size of a grain of rice and provided by Swedish company Biohax, the tiny device employs passive near field communication (NFC) to interface with a user’s digital environment. Access control is just one application for the device, which can be deployed in lieu of a smart card in numerous uses. Biohax says more than 4,000 individuals have implanted the device. Using the device for corporate employees Every user is given plenty of information to make an informed decision whether they want to use the deviceCurrently Biohax is having dialogue with curious corporate customers about using the device for their employees. “It’s a dialogue, not Big Brother planning to chip every employee they have,” says Jowan Österlund, CEO at Biohax. Every user is given plenty of information to make an informed decision whether they want to use the device. Data capture form to appear here! “Proof of concept” demonstrations have been conducted at several companies, including Tui, a travel company in Sweden that uses the device for access management, ID management, printing, gym access and self-checkout in the cafeteria. Biohax is also having dialogue with some big companies in the United Kingdom, including legal and financial firms. Österlund aims to have a full working system in place in the next year or so. A Swedish rail company accepts the implanted chip in lieu of a paper train ticket. They accept existing implants but are not offering to implant the chips. Österlund says his company currently has no plans to enter the U.S. market. The device is large enough to locate easily and extract if needed, and small enough to be unobtrusive Access control credential The device is inserted/injected below the skin between the index finger and the thumb. The circuitry has a 10-year lifespan. The device is large enough to locate easily and extract if needed, and small enough to be unobtrusive. The only risk is the possibility of infection, which is true anytime the skin is pierced, and the risk is mitigated by employing health professionals to inject the chip. Use of the device as an access control credential or any other function is offered as a voluntary option; any requirement by an employer to inject the device would be illegal, says Österlund. It’s a convenient choice that is made “based on a well-informed decision by the customer.” Aversion to needles, for example, would make some users squeamish to implant the device. More education of users helps to allay any concerns: Some 10% of employees typically would agree quickly to the system, but a larger group of 50% to 60% are likely to agree over time as they get more comfortable with the idea and understand the convenience, says Österlund. Protection of information The passive device does not actively send out any signals as you walk. It is only powered up by a reader if a user has access rightsIn terms of privacy concerns, information contained on the device is in physical form and is protected. The passive device does not actively send out any signals as you walk. There is no battery. It is only powered up by a reader if a user has access rights. With use of the device being discussed in the United Kingdom, there has been some backlash. For example, Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), has said: “Microchipping would give bosses even more power and control over their workers.” A big misconception is that the chip is a tracking device, says Österlund. It isn’t. “We love people to get informed,” says Österlund. “If they’re scared or apprehensive, they can just read up. It’s not used to control you – it’s used to give you control.”

Ethical consumption: should you buy security products ‘Made in China’?
Ethical consumption: should you buy security products ‘Made in China’?

Should ‘Made in China’ be seen as a negative in security systems and products? It’s an important and complex issue that merits a more detailed response than my recent comment in the Expert Panel Roundtable. For me, there are two sides of the answer to this question: Buying products that have certain negative attributes that are not in alignment with some part of a belief system or company mandate. Buying products that do not perform as advertised or do something that is unacceptable. For integrators and end users making the buying decisions, the drive to purchase products may not be based on either aspect and instead on the product that can do the best job for their business. But for others, a greater emphasis on the ethical implications of purchasing decisions drives decision-making. What is ethical consumption? Ethical consumption is a type of consumer activism that is based on the concept of ‘positive buying’ in that ethical products are favouredEthical consumption — often called ethical consumerism — is a type of consumer activism that is based on the concept of ‘positive buying’ in that ethical products are favoured, and products that are ethically questionable may be met with a ‘moral boycott’. This can be as simple as only buying organic produce or as complex as boycotting products made in a totalitarian regime that doesn't offer its citizens the same freedoms that we enjoy in the United States. Consider the goals of the Boston Tea Party or the National Consumers League (NCL), which was formed to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. Some examples of considerations behind ethical consumption include fair trade, treatment of workers, genetic modification, locally made and processed goods, union-made products and services, humane animal treatment, and in general, labour issues and manufacturing practices that take these factors into account. Increase in ethical consumption The numbers show that ethical consumption is on the rise. In a 2017 study by Unilever, 33 percent of consumers reported choosing to buy and support brands that they believe are doing social or environmental good. In the same study, 53 percent of shoppers in the United Kingdom and 78 percent in the United States said they feel better when they buy products that are ‘sustainably’ produced. There’s clear evidence that products from some Chinese companies suffer from cybersecurity vulnerabilities Though the aforementioned question that sparked this conversation centres around concerns with products made in China, there are many other countries where, for example, governments/dictators are extremely repressive to all or parts of their populations, whose products, such as oil, diamonds, minerals, etc., we happily consume. There are also a number of countries that are a threat in terms of cybersecurity. It may be naive and simplistic to single out Chinese manufacturers. Impact on physical security products Product buying decisions based on factors other than product functionality, quality and price are also starting to permeate the security marketplace. While this hasn't been a large focus area from the business-to-business consumption side, it's something that should be considered for commercial security products for a variety of reasons. Hardware hacks are more difficult to pull off and potentially more devastating" There’s clear evidence that products from some Chinese companies suffer from cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Last fall, 30 U.S. companies, including Apple and Amazon, were potentially compromised when it was discovered that a tiny microchip in the motherboard of servers built in China that weren't a part of the original specification. According to a Bloomberg report, “This attack was something graver than the software-based incidents the world has grown accustomed to seeing. Hardware hacks are more difficult to pull off and potentially more devastating, promising the kind of long-term, stealth access that spy agencies are willing to invest millions of dollars and many years to get.” This, along with many other incidents, are changing the considerations behind purchasing decisions even in the physical security industry. Given that physical security products in general have been lax on cybersecurity, this is a welcome change. Combating tech-specific threats In early January, members of the U.S. Senate introduced bipartisan legislation to help combat tech-specific threats to national security posed by foreign actors and ensure U.S. technological supremacy by improving interagency coordination across the U.S. government. The bill creates the Office of Critical Technologies & Security at the White House, an indication that this issue is of critical importance to a number of players across the tech sector. Members of the U.S. Senate introduced bipartisan legislation to help combat tech-specific threats to national security posed by foreign actors To address a significant number of concerns around ethical production, there are certifications such as ISO 26000 which provides guidance on social responsibility by addressing accountability, transparency, ethical behaviour, respect for stakeholder interests, respect for rule of law, respect for international norms of behaviour and respect for human rights. While still emerging within physical security, companies that adhere to these and other standards do exist in the marketplace. Not buying products vulnerable to cyberattacks It may be counter-productive, even irresponsible, to brand all products from an entire country as unfit for purchasing. Some manufacturers’ products may be ethically questionable, or more vulnerable to cyberattacks than others; so not buying products made by those companies would make sense. The physical security industry might be playing a bit of catch up on this front, but I think we're beginning to see a shift toward this kind of responsible buying behaviour.