Can window film products improve the security of buildings and homes? Here we provide an overview of the protection they can provide.

The window film industry has come a long way since NASA first asked 3M to invent a lightweight product to use in space exploration to reduce heat and glare.

You may not have heard of this product, but you have almost certainly experienced it, even if it is just within your sunglasses. These advances in window film technology can form part of your overall security measures.

Protection from blast

Although a terrorist attack with an explosive device is thankfully a rare occurrence, the effects can be devastating, resulting in death, serious injury and major damage. When a blast occurs, windows and glass wall panels are shattered. The glass particles from toughened or annealed glass fly with incredible force and it is these particles that cause the damage and trauma.

The risk assessment for new build projects will determine which damage limitation measures should be specified. Existing or historically protected buildings may need a different solution. The National Protective Security Authority (NPSA) recommends the use of Anti Shatter Film (ASF). Read more here: Windows and Glazed Facades

Retrofitting ASF to existing glazing is a low-cost option to replacement: the existing glazing will be upgraded by its application to laminated glass standard. It should be noted that film will need replacing after a number of years. NPSA advice says: “Manufacturers’ warranty periods range from 10 to 15 years, depending on the product and environment it is installed in. External applied films tend to offer reduced lifespans, typically between 5 and 8 years.”

Security with glass safety film

The glazing in your building or home is likely to be the weakest point of entry for any would-be intruder. An attempt to enter premises is usually by force: either by damaging locks or breaking a pane of glass. Most intruders want to be in and out quickly, giving you, your neighbours and response agents little time to apprehend them. Breaking a pane of glass with a few quick blows can be easy in some instances: the entry and exit is established and is relatively quiet save for one crash of glass – usually ignored by those that hear it.

Safety film retrofitted to glass can significantly increase the time taken to break through the glass and require repeated hammering to break through. The noise and time taken is your protection; no intruder will continue to attack glass that is strengthened in this way, and if they do, the chances of apprehension improve as each second ticks by.

Improving privacy

The greatest asset of glass is its transparency. Unfortunately, it is also its weakness. The use of glass in buildings and homes provides for easy viewing for anyone to see what you may have or what you are doing. Blinds and curtains provide protection, but for reasons of fashion, safety, cost, and cleaning, may not be practicable.

Privacy window film retrofitted can be the solution to the problem of clear glazing. There are many options available, ranging from slightly obscure to fully mirrored. There is an option for the ability to switch from clear to obscure: and combined films for security, anti-glare, and privacy. Installation of this type of window film can also improve energy efficiencies, leading to large cost savings on energy bills.

Benjamin Hickling

Managing Director,

Solartek Films Ltd.  www.solartekfilms.co.uk

The post How to improve your glazing to increase security appeared first on City Security Magazine.

According to the guidance issued by the HSE (Health & Safety Executive) all manual – and automatic – gates should be safe. But there are undoubtedly situations where consideration must be given to ensuring the measures taken to ensure the safety of the installation do not override an overarching requirement for site security.

Safety by design

A starting point for any automated – or manual – gate installation, regardless of any specific enhanced protection issues, should always be to design out any potential safety hazards at the beginning of the project. The principle here is simple: if the gate installation is given careful consideration from a safety perspective from the outset, then the time spent represents a worthwhile investment as it will minimise the need for any costly retrofitting of measures to address critical issues.

Mind the gap

There are a number of design factors which need to be factored into any automated (and often manual) gate. This will include taking into consideration the need to ensure there are no sizeable gaps around the gate or around devices associated with the gate, which could be deemed as potential trap or crushing points. The following guidance should be followed in terms of acceptable gaps. The gap must not exceed 100mm:

• above and below the gate
• between the pales of a railing style gate
• between the support post and the centre line of the gate in the case of a sliding gate

Sloped entrances which effectively create a reducing gap must also comply with this advice. In the event that the risks cannot be eliminated by design, electronic measures will be needed

Crushing and entrapment risks

Attention should be paid to the obvious crushing risks posed by a gate that opens onto a brick pillar or similar. This again can be mitigated by design, hanging the gate on the corner of the pier or moving the gate or wall to more than 500mm from the open position of the gate. If this is not possible, finger guards should be fitted to protect crushing risks at the hinge point of the gate.

Single point failure

Steps should be taken to prevent a single point failure. The latter can be achieved by including three, not two, hinges on a swing gate, incorporating a gate tether to prevent a gate leaf falling in the event of a hinge malfunction, including end stops for fully open and closed positions for both swing and sliding gates. Sliding gates are often supported by a single post and the support/guide rollers are the only method of holding the gate in the vertical, goalpost supports will eliminate this risk.

Vehicle approach

The physical approach to the gate should be designed is such a way as to ensure that no vehicle can approach at a fast speed with a view to potentially ramming the gate to gain entry. Depending on the level of security required, it may also be relevant to include additional protection for pedestrians, such as bollards or heavy landscaping to maintain segregation.

Access control

Attention should be paid to access control in a high security setting. For example, if the gate is required to protect a high-profile member of the Royal family, only trained personnel should be permitted to instigate the opening and shutting of the gate. There can be no reliance on electronic measures and the gate would therefore represent a manned – or deadman – operation.

Proactively controlling the number of vehicles who might be able to pass through the gate at any one time is also critical to maintaining an enhanced degree of site security. Any scope for tailgating activity must be ruled out, so an airlock system needs to be adopted to effectively monitor, and where necessary, hold any incoming vehicles whilst essential paperwork checks are undertaken to authorise and validate entry to (and exit from) to the facility.

In some high-risk situations, there is a need to create a ‘sterile’ zone within the airlock itself, which provides an airtight location where vehicles can neither enter nor exit the site. This originates a safe environment where suitably trained personnel can undertake additional checks, for example, a comprehensive scanning of underneath the vehicle to establish the presence of any explosives not visible to the human eye.

The width of the actual entry point into the premises must be conducive to enabling only one vehicle to pass at a time; this also dictates the requirement to incorporate segregated entry and exit routes for all motorised traffic.

Equally it is imperative that segregated access is in place to enable the controlled movement of any on-foot visitors. This is likely to require the inclusion of a turnstile operation which is designed to accommodate only one person at a time. Alternatively – or sometimes in addition, employing an access card with a dedicated PIN can also provide a further layer of security before admission is authorised.

Richard Jackson

Founder of Gate Safe

www.gate-safe.org

Gate Safe was set up in 2010, in the wake of the tragic deaths of two children crushed by automated gates, in separate accidents. The charity’s aim is simple – to put a stop to any further accidents or fatalities occurring as a result of an unsafe electric gate or barrier installation.

Read more articles on physical security

Read more articles on Access Control

The post Improve gate safety without jeopardising security appeared first on City Security Magazine.

How can smart systems protect buildings from the potential of electrical fire risks? A smart electrical fire prevention strategy can help.

Often sparking without any warning during the day or at night, electrical fires are fatal. They endanger life, property and the health of the business itself. The impact of the disruption that follows – costing over $2 million in insurance claims on average – often outweighs the cost of initial property damage caused. Once the smoke has cleared, it is the impact of the business disruption caused that proves most lethal to businesses. As Dr Verena Brenner, the Head of Central Services at HDI Risk Consulting GmbH, a global industrial insurer, has said: “The financial loss resulting from business interruption is often greater than the actual damage to property that has caused this interruption.”

A fire response plan is critical to ensuring your employees make it out of the building safely. However, for the business to survive in the long term you need to be aiming for more than just fire response – prevention is by far the best cure, ensuring any danger to staff, property and operations is greatly minimised. To achieve proactive prevention, however, you need data and the ability to turn it into real-time insight.

The Internet of Things (IoT), coupled with a smart, dynamic systems architecture that enables continuous detection and data exploitation, allows organisations to put out fires before they can even begin. A connected approach saves costs by preventing expensive emergency repairs and maintenance, protects your staff and lowers your total organisational risk.

A slow-burning danger

Almost all electrical fires originate in a building or facility’s electrical circuit. Today’s regulations do an adequate job of encouraging businesses to protect their buildings from the dangers of short circuits and overloads, usually by mandating the use of circuit breakers and fuses. However, organisations should also be aware of the risks posed by circuit deterioration and mistakes made during the installation.

Loose cabling and faulty insulation or connections – even something as small as an untightened screw – can significantly increase a circuit’s fire risk. Unprotected electrical switchboards are a hotspot for fires, vulnerable to vermin infestation and internal overheating. Final distribution and final circuits present additional risks due to the quantity of connections, the low cross-section area and the type of cable installation method. The risk of damaged cables is also much higher than in power and distribution circuits.

The lesson here is that fire safety professionals and business leaders can’t simply focus on one area of the circuit while neglecting the others. Circuits age unevenly and unpredictably, so comprehensive, persistent monitoring and predictive maintenance are key to limiting fire risk. Fires often break out without warning and become a dangerous crisis in minutes, so it is therefore crucial that checks go beyond regular ‘one-offs’.  Only continual monitoring and detection will ensure you are ready for any eventuality.

Saving costs, saving lives

For maximum protection, organisations need smart, connected solutions that detect fire and the risk of fire at every level and every moment. This means protection at the switchboard, at the circuit and at the distribution level, underpinned by a centralised system for real-time monitoring and detection. This demands a multi-layered technological approach, including a range of smart sensors on the circuit level, systems for edge control and a suite of apps and services to advise and recommend action.

On the circuit level, continuous thermal monitoring is crucial for the early detection of faulty connections and temperature alarming. When installed at critical areas of the switchgear, smart and IoT-connected sensors perform accurate ambient temperature measurements. A smart sensor that can detect smoke and gas particles can then alert operators to dangerously high temperatures before they turn critical.

Smart and proactive fire prevention takes an immense amount of contextualised data, collected across a digital estate and fed back to the building manager.

Smart maintenance

The risk of fire increases as components and equipment age, so choosing the ideal time for maintenance also becomes very important. Analytics can increase efficiency and optimise resources, tracking assets to interpret their status and history while triggering preventive notifications and 24/7 support. This alerts you to equipment faults before they can snowball into business-disrupting crises. It also improves equipment longevity and cuts repair costs, as you can schedule maintenance only when it is needed and avoid expensive emergency repairs on damaged equipment.

When all conditions and variables are known, risk becomes predictable and manageable. The IoT provides unrivalled visibility into your electrical circuit, enabling continuous monitoring and data collection across all your entire electrical estate. This way you can identify where the greatest fire risk is, and rapidly move in to resolve it. By embedding connected solutions across the circuit and enabling real-time analytics, it is possible to create safeguards against the often-unappreciated dangers of faulty installation and ageing components. A connected fire prevention strategy ensures your business can remain safe, operational and risk free.

Fires are preventable. When you follow the right approach for electrical fire prevention with the best tools, a fire can be put out before it even has a chance to begin, saving lives and protecting businesses. In this way, smart electrical fire prevention delivers both reliable protection and peace of mind. Such innovative fire prevention solutions even have the potential to disrupt established markets, such as insurance, by transforming industrial insurance with the help of IoT-driven insurance products and services through data.

More importantly, a much better understanding of causes of fires, assessment and proactive management of fire risks will not only improve safety, it will also enable industry innovation and fuel industry partnerships in the area of data-driven fire prevention.

Nadège Petit

Executive Vice President Global Power Products, Schneider Electric.

Article contributed by IFSEC International. www.ifsec.co.uk

The post Fighting fire risks with data appeared first on City Security Magazine.

Not all security revolving doors are the same, with some requiring manual intervention to make them attack-resistant.

Specifying a revolving door

When specifying a security revolving door, it’s important to bear in mind that a forced attack can’t always be anticipated and therefore aesthetics shouldn’t be the only consideration, not least because not all revolving doors offer the expected resistance to attack.

The point of entrance is usually the most vulnerable part of a building when it comes to attack by criminals, protestors or terrorists.

As a result, larger premises have relied on a manned gatehouse at the perimeter and staffed reception or security team at the building entrance. However, as intruders become more willing to use force, or simply tailgate their way in by closely following the person in front, specifiers are looking for more robust ways of protecting people and assets, whilst still retaining architectural appeal.

Attack ready

Specifiers need to be aware that not all security revolving doors are the same. For instance, some models require manual intervention to make them attack-resistant. This is not ideal because attacks can happen quickly, with perpetrators relying on speed and surprise to force their way through a revolving door before additional physical layers of defence are manually deployed or intervention arrives.

One of the ways that you can be certain that a secure Revolving Door is able to withstand these kinds of unexpected, forced attacks is to specify one that meets LPS 1175: Issue 8 and Secured by Design (SBD). Any product that is LPS 1175 certified or is accredited by Secured by Design will also meet or exceed the requirements of Approved Document Q. Revolving Doors that are in a permanent state of attack-readiness, where no user intervention is required, avoid the risk and delay of activating a secondary layer of defence such as night security shutter.

A safer future with LPS 1175

LPS 1175: Issue 8 is an important entrance control security standard when it comes to specifying security portals and revolving doors, not least because it is now a requirement in many different sectors, including: education, finance, healthcare, manufacturing, the public sector, residential, retail and utilities.

Issue 8 of LPS 1175 is the latest version of the standard. It retains the same rigorous testing procedures as Issue 7 with the addition of several new tests to reflect a broader spectrum of threat scenarios. Important updates include changes to reflect the scope of tools now available, size of tools, access to tools, portability of tools, power and effectiveness.

The new ‘matrix’ style security ratings defined within the revised standard facilitates LPS 1175 being applied to a far wider scope of threat scenarios.

Several industry bodies are encouraging the uptake of LPS 1175; Richard Flint, LPCB’s Physical Security Certification Scheme Manager, said, “When assessing the overall level of risk, correctly specified security products are critical in protecting buildings and their users against crime. We encourage the use of LPS 1175-approved products wherever possible because it hardens premises against criminal attack. Specifiers should refer to the LPCB Red Book when looking for LPS 1175- approved physical security products. Security portals and revolving doors certified to these standards are able to resist experienced attempts by criminals at forced entry using a wide range of tools.”

He added, “LPCB’s LPS 1175 standard sets the bar in providing specifiers with confidence in specifying physical entrance security that is able to withstand forced attack. Specifying LPS 1175 products which have been independently third party tested provides confidence that the product will perform as claimed, whereas untested products may not perform as expected.”

For revolving doors to provide adequate levels of protection against criminal attack they need to achieve LPS 1175 and be in a permanent state of attack-readiness. Until relatively recently there were no revolving doors or security portals available to LPS 1175.

Historically, that meant compromises had to be made between security and aesthetics, resulting in some buildings ending up looking fortress-like with little architectural appeal or specifiers settling for a less secure façade solution in order to retain building aesthetics and requiring the expense of a secondary security rated night-barrier. However, that has now changed, with LPS 1175 approved revolving doors and security portals removing the need for multiple or secondary security barriers and also being aesthetically pleasing.

Iain Entwistle

Product Marketing Manager Meesons A.I. Ltd.

www.meesons.com

See also LPS 1175 Security Portals securing workplaces

The post Rethinking Security Revolving Doors appeared first on City Security Magazine.

When specifying physical security products for resisting unauthorised access, Issue 8, a new revision to the standard LPS 1175, offers businesses more flexibility to identify solutions specific to the threats they face.

Professionalism extends not only to the way a company conducts its own business, but also to the suppliers it associates with. This is especially important where security is concerned. With so many different products available of varying quality, how can specifiers make informed decisions?

Independent certification bodies such as the Loss Prevention Certification Board (LPCB) are one of specifiers’ most useful sources of guidance for identifying security products that will offer an appropriate and tailored level of protection against forced entry.

Recently, the LPCB updated its flagship certification system, LPS 1175, with the newly revised Issue 8. This is welcome news in the security industry, which is faced with increasingly diverse threats needing an effective response.

A new performance classification system

Historically, certifications have been largely binary in nature. A product was either certified or not certified to a specific security rating, defined by a single tool category and attack time. As a result, businesses were afforded little flexibility when specifying solutions.

Providing a more layered approach than previous revisions, Issue 8 makes it possible to combine products tested to different attack times using the same tool set.

The update better reflects the increasingly effective tools and broader knowledge that attackers have, as the threats companies face become ever more nuanced.

The new performance classification system allows specifiers to prepare for the many variables that come into play during an attack.

Security decision makers can adapt their security measures according to a number of conditions, such as the tools intruders are likely to use; approach routes; strength and stamina required to carry certain tools; whether attackers need to conceal the equipment, and how much noise they’ll make.

Manufacturers are not required to submit products that are approved to LPS 1175 to be re-evaluated to the latest standard. However, they do need to update all relevant paperwork and certifications so specifiers know which issue of the standard existing products are tested to.

Cost challenges

Issue 8 also tackles a common hurdle for security specifiers: cost. Research on the UK’s security landscape we conducted this year highlighted budget as the most cited challenge to commissioning security projects, reported by 47% of security decision makers.

The considered approach of Issue 8 facilitates more economical specification, especially in situations where criminals may spend less time attempting to breach than recognised in LPS 1175.

Now, specifiers can choose products based on the delay in response time and tool set independently rather than selecting from fixed combinations of the two. The new certification provides 48 possible combinations of threat and delay, allowing specifiers to select the most appropriate solutions for specific situations. For example, a product evaluated with tool kit E with a corresponding minimum delay of 5 minutes has a rating of E5.

Five Ds of defence

By predicting a likely toolset, specifiers can construct multiple defensive layers to maximise how much time a facility has to respond to an attack. Different levels of security are crucial for the ‘5D defence’ concept, whereby multiple layers of security work together to prevent access to your site’s assets.

This means a strategy that will:

• Deter – Dissuade potential intruders from making attempts to breach
• Detect – Make it easier to detect intruders
• Deny – Deny entry to a site, or its most sensitive areas
• Delay – Maximise the time your security team has to respond to a breach
• Defend – The innermost ring of security which leads to successfully apprehending intruders.

Each layer provides a known delay time against entry attempts. For example, using three protective layers consisting of F1, F3 and F10 would provide 14 minutes of delay against Category F tools. Prior to Issue 8 each layer would have had to resist at least 10 minutes for its resistance to those tools to be approved to LPS 1175.

Equipped for the future

Over the past few years we’ve seen security threats diversify rapidly, from the tactics used to new technology. To be prepared to defend their assets at any given time, businesses need to make informed decisions about the products they specify. New approaches to security such as Issue 8 are a lifeline to those who may feel daunted by the task of securing against attack in a time of uncertainty.

Supporting carefully selected products with physical penetration testing, simulations and consulting with security experts helps companies identify weaknesses and keep up to date with the latest threats. A proactive approach to security is crucial to avoiding unwanted incidents and expensive, and potentially irreversible, consequences.

Peter Jackson, Managing Director, Jacksons Fencing

www.jacksons-security.co.uk

The post An effective response to risk diversity – issue eight appeared first on City Security Magazine.

Cyber criminals will relentlessly look to exploit vulnerabilities in all technology, including physical security systems. How can organisations harden their physical security systems to protect them from cyber attacks?

Physical security systems and devices, including CCTV cameras and access control systems, are smarter, more powerful and more connected than ever before. As part of both public and private networks, they are increasingly unified to facilitate their management, speed up communications, increase data sharing, and, most importantly, empower security professionals to keep people and organisations safe and secure.

However, while citizens and businesses benefit from this growing connectivity of security, emerging cyber threats, hazards and criminal activity can lead to new vulnerabilities and risks in a well- documented convergence between physical and cyber.

Hacking a security system

As we have previously spoken about in our article Cyber security in an age of state-sponsored cyber attackers, a less than secure camera or unprotected communications between a server and client application is all that a cyber criminal needs.

As the scope of cyber attacks is increasing, there has also been a rise in cases of cybercriminals getting into private security cameras to access the video and images they contain. Hacking a security system can take any number of forms, including brute force, packet sniffing, and man-in-the-middle attacks. In the latter case, cybercriminals are able to ‘listen in’ to communications that the participants believed to be secure.

Unsecure devices – leaving the gate open

Beginning to harden your security infrastructure against this type of intrusion can be as easy as changing the default manufacturer password. According to our own research, 23 per cent of users have at least one camera that uses default credentials. However, with greater connectivity of systems over the internet, an unsecure device can become the gateway to accessing a large amount of data and information. Put simply, working to harden a physical security system is also working to protect all of the other systems and data on that network.

A strategy for hardening your security

Given these potential vulnerabilities, it makes sense to have a security strategy in place that protects against both physical and cyber threats. Not only this, but the solution must also provide users with insight into their devices, and show them how to improve their security. This kind of system is one which incorporates multiple and varied lines of defence, including encryption, multi-layer authentication, and authorisation. This comprehensive approach requires that every device captures data and moves it to a unified security system for management, analysis and storage with strong encryption that is accessible only to authenticated and authorised end-users.

Encryption and Authentication

This all starts with encryption – the most basic thing that users can do to protect their data. When data is encrypted, even if an unauthorised person gains access to it, it is not readable without the appropriate key. It is a straightforward enough process, but it requires that vendors build this capability into their security products. If a product does not enable encryption, it should be an immediate red flag. Encryption is a good way of hiding data, but it cannot stop unauthorised access to your network. For this, organisations employ different forms of authentication. Authentication is the process of first determining if an entity is who it claims to be and verifying if and how that entity should access a system.

Keep your infrastructure secure

Beyond encryption, one of the keys to maintaining overall system health is keeping your infrastructure secure. An improperly protected device or component can leave you vulnerable. In an ideal world, all endpoints will be thoroughly checked upon installation and kept up to date. However, with often hundreds of devices’ data across a site (such as cameras, access control points and other sensors), it can be incredibly difficult to manually manage each endpoint. Accessing the information required, hunting down the various criteria and then checking each element manually makes the process highly labour-intensive. It is for this reason that modern centralised security applications can monitor the system’s health and provide the end-user with a complete view which helps them anticipate problems and develop solutions proactively.

This type of guide shouldn’t be full of technical jargon and codes that most end-users will not understand. It should be in clear English, provide rules that are easy to understand and ultimately provide an objective score of how secure the system is.

Effective system maintenance

In addition to following best practices, ensuring that your system is up to date is also key for maintaining its security. According to our data, only 30 per cent of cameras use the latest firmware version. This means that 70 per cent of supposedly secure cameras are running out-of-date firmware that is potentially an attack vector. A sophisticated solution will not only show users the status of these endpoints, but have configuration and updates built in. As a result, system maintenance becomes more effective, and costs therefore reduced.

Every party is responsible for cybersecurity

The world of physical security has become connected to the internet at an astonishing pace. No longer do we live in a ‘closed’ world; even ‘airtight’ systems (those which are kept on an internal network with no connection to the outside) are hackable with a USB stick. Every party is responsible for cybersecurity – from the manufacturer and the integrator to consultants and the end-user. As end-users are most at threat from a vulnerable device, they should ensure that the vendors and suppliers they go into business with are just as serious about cyber security and provide them with the tools to protect against cybercriminal activity.

Paul Dodds

UK & Ireland Country Manager,

Genetec Inc.

www.genetec.com

The post Hardening physical security appeared first on City Security Magazine.

Future predictions see the majority of the world’s population residing in cities, with accompanying security risks. How ready is the security sector for this this?

The smart city

Even in today’s advanced digital landscape, smart cities still seem like an abstract concept confined to a distant future, yet worldwide spending on technologies for smart cities has increased to $80 billion in 2018, with that figure expected to increase to $135 billion by 2021.

The United Nations predicts that 68% of the world’s population will reside in urban areas by 2050, placing considerable strain on resources and the ways in which space is managed. This huge migration will accelerate not only the development of smarter cities but also the accompanying security risks. As physical space and the way people interact with it changes, so too will the threats and potential opportunities for exploitation.

In short, a digitally agile security industry is now a key requirement for life in the 21st century. But how far off is this from being realised?

Bits and bytes

Security technology has progressed rapidly in recent years. Panoramic wide-lens cameras, facial recognition scanning, CCTV analytics and artificial intelligence are just some of the latest innovations to have been introduced, bringing with them the opportunity to pre-empt and mitigate risk. In a number of US cities, for example, sensors have been installed in street lamps to help police and security teams identify where and when a gun has been discharged.  While here in the UK, integrated ‘command and control’ vehicles are now in use to help improve response times in built-up spaces. These instances represent how the best security providers are now responding to the opportunities provided in ‘smart’ urban environments. Unfortunately, these examples represent the exception rather than the rule.

Receptiveness to change

The staggering amount of data that is produced as a result of smart technology has forced a shift in the security industry’s focus. Even a quick glance through the media will show a preoccupation with cyber attacks, data breaches and other tech-orientated risk. This is hardly surprising. The ways in which criminals can now inflict damage has diversified just as technology has become cheaper and more accessible. While this interest has helped bring the conversation more firmly into the 21st century, security still struggles to define its remit when discussions around the smart city arise.

The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, the latest innovations are often regarded as a luxury. While businesses generally welcome new ideas and the introduction of technology, there is often a reluctance to take the ‘extra step’ in terms of both budget and support. Customer and supplier tendency to ‘play it safe’ means that innovations remain untested in the field, which in turn holds back the development necessary to make cutting-edge technology commonplace.

Secondly, the security industry is inherently cautious, preferring to stick with what it knows rather than fully exploring the profound advantages that data and technology provide. Again, this is hardly surprising when considering the security industry’s primary function: to identify and mitigate risk wherever it presents itself.

These two issues are compounded by the tender process. Providers that stray too far from customer requirements run the risk of scoring too low and eliminating themselves from the process. This ultimately leads to a preoccupation with ‘the norm’ that stifles progress and positive change within the industry. While winning new business will always remain the priority, the need for security providers to embrace and communicate technology’s strategic value is vital if it is to keep pace with emerging threats in the smart city. There is also a real need for customers to demand contract development and greater value from security partners to help break the impasse.

Where does this leave physical security?

Discussion of future innovations inevitably leads to concerns for job security. Surely in hyper-modern environments, where technology reigns supreme, the need for manned guarding will inevitably decline? Does the smart city, in other words, signal the end for physical security?

The answer to this question again relies on the industry’s receptiveness and ability to see through change. It’s not unreasonable to assume that as technology improves it will eventually be accepted in place of officers as the non-fallible option. If indeed the human is the weakest link, removing this risk makes absolute sense and organisations will have to adapt and upskill their workforce in order to cope with new technologies and changes to the environments that they secure.

It’s becoming clear that officers in the smart city will monitor remotely and work in response to intelligence provided by technology, as opposed to accruing the information themselves through patrol. This will require proactive changes to how labour is currently recruited and developed, with the ability to analyse and interpret data rising in importance. Whether welcomed or not, smart cities will grow as we move further into the century. The industry, and in particular manned guarding, must acknowledge this and adjust the way it delivers its services. Physical intervention will remain essential in the detection and prevention of crime, with improved data equipping security teams with more detailed information when responding to incidents.

There are plenty of documented cases where cyber attacks have caused damage in the physical world. It can only be assumed that these kinds of attacks will increase as more devices, and therefore opportunities to interfere, enter the fray. The future of the security Industry will be determined by its openness to change, as well as an ability to secure investment and properly train emerging generations of professionals. Some progress has been made on this issue, but more can and should be done.

Darren Read

Managing Director, Amulet Security

www.amulet.co.uk

See also:

The security industry in 2019

Converging security roles

The post The smart city and physical security appeared first on City Security Magazine.

Find out why LPS 1175 – the standard relating to physical entry barriers  – will provide the option of another layer of security in 2019.

The consequence of unauthorised entry into commercial buildings can be far reaching, not just in terms of theft but also for the safety of staff. In some circumstances this can lead to reputational or commercial damage. Business owners and managers have a duty of care to ensure that only those people who should be in the building are allowed to gain access.

Assessing the Risk

When looking to harden your building against unauthorised entry in 2019, the starting point is always an assessment of the overall level of security risk, which will determine the kind of physical entry barrier you need. Factors that can influence this are whether the entry point is monitored by security staff and the number of people entering and exiting the building, especially at the start and end of each day or at peak times.

It is the nature of criminals to try and gain access through a building’s weakest point, which in most cases is the entrance. The easiest approach is to simply tailgate their way into a building unnoticed by closely following the person in front as they pass through the physical entry barrier. An easy way to prevent this is to specify a Security Portal or Speed Gate that is fitted with anti-tailgating detection.

Speed Gates and LPS 1175 Security Portals

Speed Gates are commonly specified for buildings where there is a medium to high volume of traffic because they provide the optimum combination of performance, throughput and aesthetics. Buildings that require more specific entry control measures in 2019 may well find that a Security Portal offers the best solution.

Security Portals offer an enhanced level of protection against unauthorised and forced entry because they create a fully enclosed barrier that only allows one person to transit through the interlock at any one time, and then only after they have presented valid credentials.

They can be enhanced with an anti-piggyback device (APD) with ultrasonic sensors that scan inside the portal to ensure that only one person has entered. If more than one person is detected – indicating someone is trying to tailgate their way into the building – the internal doors remain closed, preventing forward passage. In these situations, Security Portals provide a 24/7 unmanned secure entrance solution enabling only authorised users access day or night.

LPS 1175 Security Portals

We predict that 2019 will see more building owners upgrade their entry barrier with LPS 1175 approved products. Loss Prevention Standard (LPS) 1175 relates to the requirements and testing procedures for the Loss Prevention Certification Board (LPCB) for intruder resistant building components, strong point, security enclosures and free-standing barriers. It provides specifiers and their clients with a defined performance level and reassurance they will safeguard individuals and buildings against risk.

LPS 1175 approved Security Portals are able to withstand a forced entry attempt by criminals – a step up from standard Security Portals. LPS 1175 is now a requirement on projects in many different sectors, including: education, finance, healthcare, manufacturing, the public sector, residential, retail and utilities.

Specifying Security Portals that meet this standard mean they provide resistance to determined attempts at forced entry using a range of techniques, including those that involve creation of noise. LPS 1175 approved Security Portals can also be supplied with bullet resistant glazing – BR3/S EN1063.

When choosing an LPS 1175 Security Portal, it is preferable to specify one that incorporates large glazed areas and has minimal framework, because it will offer high transparency and enhanced aesthetic appeal, making it a secure alternative to revolving doors. It also avoids the building entrance appearing fortress-like and imposing, which can be the case with a standard security door, which can appear intimidating for staff and customers.

When assessing the overall level of security risk, correctly specifying security products is critical in protecting buildings and their users against the risk of crime. The consequences of not taking action to upgrade your physical entry barrier system in 2019 could have wider-reaching consequences. Conversely, taking steps to address the issue with an LPS 1175 Security Portal that is capable of preventing unauthorised and forced entry can create a sense of enhanced safety and wellbeing with staff and customers.

Martin Washby, Technical Services Manager, Meesons A.I. Ltd, www.meesons.com

The post LPS 1175 Security Portals securing workplaces in 2019 appeared first on City Security Magazine.

Your security risk assessment and the resulting measures put in place will include how your organisation implements postroom security. This will include the physical location and security for delivery, equipment to consider and processes and procedures for staff to follow, taking into account the size and nature of your business.

The CPNI, in collaboration with the British Standards Institution (BSI), have produced detailed guidance on mail screening and security: PAS 97:2015 Mail screening and security.  Below are nine key areas to consider for effective postroom security:

1. Establish a delivery policy for post and packages

For example, some organisations do not allow personal deliveries for staff. In multi-occupancy buildings, tenants may be required to use the same suppliers for some items to reduce the number of deliveries made. You may decide to pre-screen all deliveries off site before delivering them to their destination.

2. Consider the location of your delivery room

If possible, locate the loading bay / delivery room in an area away from any business-critical parts of the building such as: server rooms, gas utility inlets, air conditioning outlets / inlets with their own or no air conditioning. An assessment should be made to see what is around the immediate vicinity of the delivery areas and actions taken to minimise any potential blast or spread of lethal powders. However, it may not be possible to locate the delivery room this way:  in older buildings, limited options only are available. British Standard PAS 97 discusses this further.

3. Put security in place for the loading bay / post room

The loading bay / post room should have an access control system that only allows authorised personnel to enter, where possible, backed up with CCTV to give a full audit trail of who goes where and when.

4. Have a single point of entry for all deliveries

Deliveries in most buildings are carried out through the loading bay; however, in a lot of cases the delivery of smaller items is accepted at the reception area thus circumnavigating any security checks in the loading bay area.

5. Train all staff dealing with post and parcels in suspect package recognition

All staff who deal with post and packages should attend a recognised accredited course for the recognition of suspect packages. This training should be carried out regularly so that the staff are kept up to date with the latest devices and methodologies.

6. Consider implementing a hand sort – to identify the tell-tale signs that could make a package suspicious

Where possible, mail and parcels can initially be sorted by hand in order to identify any of the key signs for identifying a suspicious package. Whether you implement this for all deliveries will depend on a number of factors, including your risk assessment and how much mail you get: there needs to be a balance between security and business needs. The hand sort should check for one or more of these signs:

• Shape of package: IEDs or incendiary devices can contain irregular shapes such as power supplies, detonators and trigger switches which would give the package an unbalanced look, feel and weight. If you are suspicious of a package, then handle carefully.
• Post mark and stamps: Be suspicious of excessive use of stamps in comparison with the weight of the package. Also, be vigilant as to where the package has originated from (it may be from a high-risk country).
• Smell: Certain explosives have a distinctive aroma like almonds that can be sweet and pleasing to the nose; this smell can also be masked by perfumes / aftershaves, coffee etc. Any strong smell should be viewed suspiciously.
• Oily marks: Explosives can sweat with temperature differences, thus leaving greasy or oily marks on the envelopes / packages. Be suspicious of any such like marks.
• Seal: Envelopes containing powder such as anthrax, ricin and caustic soda are generally heavily sealed with tape to prevent the escape of powder during the postal process. Also be suspicious of postal tubes that are heavil taped up just at one end, as human nature would tell you to open it at the end that isn’t heavily taped up, which could be the trigger for an IED.

Always check with the person to whom it is addressed to see if they are expecting anything that matches the postmark and size of package you are holding.

7. Consider the use of an effective x-ray machine for the scanning of parcels and letters

The nature and size of your business may justify the use of an x-ray machine to check all incoming deliveries to assess whether each parcel / letter is safe or suspect. Of course, not every location or company can warrant the initial cost or maintenance, staffing costs involved with an x-ray machine or, indeed, have a place to put a machine. It should be noted that older x-ray machines can degrade over a period of time so a regular assessment on the effectiveness of your x-ray machine should be carried out.

X-ray machines have a number of enhancement tools designed to give the user more detail when interrogating an image. Unfortunately, the training on the use of the x-ray machines is normally carried out by a senior person and as a result, gets watered down as time goes on. Official user and refresher training by the service provider should be carried out every 12 months to avoid this happening.

8. Establish an action plan for dealing with a suspect package

A full written action plan for the discovery of explosives and powders should be known by all staff. These procedures should be practised at all levels.

9. Review

All equipment and procedures around the way parcels / letters enter the building and the action on discovery plans need to be reviewed on an annual basis.

This list is not exhaustive. The processes, procedures and equipment you put in place will depend on your business operation and your risk assessment. But a comprehensive approach to post and parcel delivery is a crucial part of the security of your organisation.

Jason Wakefield

Sales Director, Todd Research

www.toddresearch.co.uk

For further reading on securing your business, see Security Management and Risk Management.

The post Postroom security: parcel delivery risk assessment appeared first on City Security Magazine.

The current terrorism threat is constantly changing, meaning that vulnerable sites need to be constantly assessing the risk.

One method of terrorist activity is vehicle- borne attacks through suicide missions or ram-raiding. Site owners and operators need to protect their assets, including property and people, from such attacks with the appropriate protective security, including vehicle security barriers (VSB).

There are a range of standards that relate to the impact testing of barriers, which help identify the most suitable VSB for each individual site. The standards specify test criteria, including type of vehicle and speed that the VSB is capable of stopping and immobilising.

Impact testing vehicle security barriers

The Catalogue of Impact Tested Vehicle Security Barriers (CITVSB) contains the impact tested products the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI) has tested through its research programme against the key standards.

From the beginning of 2014, the UK government’s elite VSB testing programme has impact tested products under International Workshop Assessment (IWA) 14. This replaced the British Standards Institution (BSI) Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 68; however, products tested under this specification have been given Grandfather rights and remain on the Catalogue of Impact Tested products.

International Workshop Agreements:

IWA 14-1 & 14-2

IWA 14-1 & 14-2 are new ISO International Workshop Agreements that combine and update elements from PAS 68, PAS 69, ASTM F 2656 and CWA 16221, as well as containing new content:

British Standards Institute Publicly Available Specification: BSI PAS 68

BSI PAS 68 is the latest BSI’s latest Publicly Available Specification for vehicle security barriers. It has become the UK’s standard and the security industry’s benchmark for HVM (Hostile Vehicle Mitigation) equipment, and is the specification against which perimeter security equipment is tested as part of the ongoing research to prevent VBIED attacks. BSI PAS 69 complements this specification by providing guidance on the installation of the tested product.

Who can help

If your site or organisation is at risk from VBIEDs, the National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO) has published Security Advice, which can be found at www.frontierpitts.com/support-documentation/guidance-info/

Each police force across the UK has a number of Counter Terrorism Security Advisors (CTSAs) who are headed by the NaCTSO.

Additionally, the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure can offer further advice. Working alongside CPNI, the CTSAs can visit site to offer non-biased advice.

Sally Osmond

Frontier Pitts

www.frontierpitts.com

The post Vehicle security barriers: the importance of Impact Testing appeared first on City Security Magazine.