IT Ownership Redefines Physical Security Risk, Shifting Vulnerabilities Instead of Eliminating Them

The increasing integration of IT teams into physical security is often hailed as a crucial corrective measure, promising to finally address long-standing vulnerabilities by bringing cameras, access control, and intrusion systems under IT governance. However, according to Greyhound Research, this assumption is only partially accurate.

While convergence undeniably closes some security gaps, it simultaneously introduces new ones. The fundamental question is no longer whether IT ownership enhances physical security, but rather if organizations truly comprehend the new risks they inherit with this transformation.

“Let’s be clear,” states Sanchit Vir Gogia, Chief Analyst at Greyhound Research. “When physical security lives outside IT, it becomes a blind spot. Devices go unpatched. Access logs go unread. Credentials stay active long after employees leave.”

Bringing these systems under IT governance certainly rectifies many of these issues. Yet, it also means physical security now inherits the inherent complexity, fragility, and interdependence characteristic of modern IT environments.

“You don’t eliminate risk,” Gogia emphasizes. “You move it.”

When Convergence Creates New Failure Modes

Greyhound’s research illuminates a growing trend: physical security systems failing not due to hardware malfunctions or installation errors, but because of routine IT changes executed without a full understanding of their physical impact.

Instances abound: badge systems have gone offline during network reconfigurations because they were omitted from routing tables. Cloud-managed video platforms have become inaccessible during single sign-on updates, leaving operators blind during live incidents. Access control systems have been misconfigured when IT teams mistakenly assumed they behaved like firewalls or VPNs.

“These aren’t exotic failures,” Gogia points out. “They’re normal IT operations colliding with systems that have real-world consequences.”

The core issue, Greyhound asserts, isn’t convergence itself. It’s the misguided assumption that integrating physical security under IT control automatically grants control without demanding new forms of responsibility.

“IT has to learn the language of physical response,” Gogia advises. “And physical teams have to trust IT processes. Without that, you get brittle systems that look great on a diagram but fall apart in an an actual incident.”

Ownership Without Coordination Is Not Resilience

Greyhound posits that IT ownership only yields improved outcomes when it’s synergized with architectural resilience and robust human coordination. Lacking these elements, organizations risk trading familiar, well-understood weaknesses for concealed, systemic fragility.

Traditional physical security environments, though often rudimentary, were predictable. In converged setups, systems are more sophisticated but critically dependent on upstream services, identity management systems, and network availability.

This dependency chain becomes acutely significant during incidents.

“If a camera goes offline because of a network change, that’s not a cyber problem or a physical problem,” Gogia explains. “It’s an organisational problem.”

Greyhound advocates for treating convergence as a socio-technical evolution, not merely a technological upgrade. Governance models, clear escalation paths, and shared ownership structures become as vital as any platform’s technical features.

The Integrator Reckoning

Nowhere is this paradigm shift more pronounced than among system integrators. Greyhound Research indicates that integrators face a stark choice: adapt or become obsolete.

“The market isn’t asking for cable pullers anymore,” Gogia states bluntly. “It’s asking for trusted partners who understand threat modelling, identity federation and patch windows.”

Greyhound has observed enterprises prematurely terminating long-standing integrator relationships mid-project when partners failed to meet evolving IT security expectations. Some integrators struggled to produce adequate documentation, while others resisted participating in vulnerability disclosure programs or regular security assessments.

“That’s not a niche requirement anymore,” Gogia asserts. “That’s table stakes.”

As IT assumes greater ownership, integrators are increasingly evaluated through the same stringent lens applied to managed service providers, cloud VARs, and IT consultancies. Mere technical competence is no longer sufficient; integrators must demonstrate governance maturity.

From Install-and-Walk to Lifecycle Ownership

Greyhound’s analysis suggests the traditional “install-and-walk” integrator model is becoming commercially untenable in IT-led environments.

The integrators flourishing today are those who offer managed services, actively participate in governance discussions, and remain engaged throughout the platform’s entire lifecycle. They are present during audits, assist in closing compliance gaps, and speak the language of procurement and risk, not just bill of materials.

“That’s where the margin is now,” Gogia reveals. “That’s where the long-term value lives.”

This evolution also redefines integrators’ positioning within client organizations. Instead of being brought in late to execute predefined designs, successful integrators are involved earlier, contributing to crucial architectural decisions and operational planning.

Those who fail to adapt face escalating competition from IT-focused players.

“If integrators don’t step up,” Gogia warns, “they lose deals to MSPs, cloud VARs or internal IT teams.”

Is Physical Security Really Becoming an IT Platform?

From a purely linguistic perspective, the answer appears to be yes. Enterprises increasingly discuss surveillance platforms, unified dashboards, and data integration. Requests for proposals (RFPs) now reference APIs, SIEM ingestion, and zero-trust alignment.

However, Greyhound cautions against equating platform maturity with terminology alone.

“In theory, physical security is being treated as an IT platform,” Gogia notes. “In practice, not yet.”

The reality on the ground remains fragmented. While some organizations are deploying cloud-native access control systems that integrate directly with Identity and Access Management (IAM) stacks, others still operate decades-old DVRs with no patch history and forgotten administrative accounts.

“The intent is there,” Gogia confirms. “The tooling is emerging. But the execution is messy.”

Platform Maturity Is More Than a Web Interface

Greyhound defines true platform maturity not by user experience, but by robust governance and comprehensive lifecycle characteristics.

A genuine platform, according to the firm, encompasses standardized APIs, secure update pipelines, policy inheritance, thorough auditability, and full lifecycle management. Many current physical security systems fall short across several of these critical dimensions.

“In many cases, what organisations have are modernised silos,” Gogia clarifies. “They look like platforms, but they don’t behave like them.”

Fragmented ownership, constrained budgets, and inconsistent vendor discipline all contribute to this disparity. Consequently, organizations may falsely believe they possess platform-level resilience when, in fact, they do not.

Regulatory Pressure Is Accelerating the Shift

Despite these challenges, Greyhound observes significant momentum building. A powerful indicator is the evolving nature of RFPs.

Requirements once considered optional or rare are rapidly becoming standard. Integration with enterprise architecture frameworks, SIEM ingestion, and alignment with zero-trust principles are increasingly expected.

“That tells us the expectation has shifted,” Gogia asserts. “Now the industry has to catch up.”

Regulators are also a driving force. As physical security systems become subject to cyber audits and data protection scrutiny, corporate boards are demanding end-to-end visibility into risk. This pressure reinforces the platform mindset, even where execution lags.

Moving Risk Is Not the Same As Reducing It

Greyhound’s overarching message is a cautionary one: convergence is essential, but it is not inherently stabilizing. Without deliberate design and robust cross-functional coordination, IT ownership can introduce new forms of systemic risk.

“Ownership improves outcomes,” Gogia states, “But only when it’s paired with architectural resilience and human coordination.”

For enterprises, this means resisting the urge to treat physical security as merely another IT asset. For integrators, it necessitates redefining their role in a market that increasingly values governance over mere hardware provision.

And for the industry as a whole, it means recognizing that the shift toward IT-led physical security isn’t the end of the risk conversation—it’s the challenging beginning of a much more complex one.