Volume 60

From West to East, the conversation doesn’t stop at the show floor. This podcast series brings together 45 voices from across the industry to share what’s actually top of mind right now. You can stream right from our Secured Youtube and Secured PodBean channels.

Jack’s episode: here
Jay’s episode: here
Chris’ episode: here
Naohiro’s episode: here

Secured Presents: XPod from The Security Event
Over two days at The Security Event in Birmingham, we set up a microphone, called it XPod, and sat down with more than forty operators, founders, and leaders from across the global physical security industry.

We asked everyone the same four questions. What came back was not a recap. It was a read on where the industry actually is, told through the people doing the work.

Three episodes. Three theses. Thirty-three voices.

This week’s episode- Intro: What We heard at TSE

You can stream directly from our Secured Youtube and Secured PodBean channels.

With all the conversation around safety and security films on doors and windows, one issue still does not get enough attention: doors and windows are not the same, yet they are often treated that way.

There are established standards for windows, but there is still a major gap when it comes to doors. Specifically, there is no official test for the use of structural adhesive or silicone as an anchoring system on doors. That matters because doors are built differently, used differently, and exposed to different forces than fixed windows.

In 2018, we conducted ANSI Z97.1 impact testing and later performed a break-in demonstration comparing different attachment methods. The results raised serious questions about whether common silicone anchoring methods are being presented with more confidence than the testing actually supports.

Many manufacturer specifications and bulletins state that structural adhesive or silicone anchoring systems are to be connected to the frame, excluding the glazing stop and compression gasket. Yet across the industry, methods that do not appear to meet those installation requirements continue to be used and described as acceptable.

That should concern all of us.

The bigger issue is not just technical. It is educational. Buyers are often relying on the security film industry to explain what works, what has been tested, and what the limitations are. If the information being shared is incomplete, unclear, or overly simplified, buyers may believe they are getting a level of protection that has not actually been proven.

This creates a false sense of security.

There are a few reasons this continues to happen. Buyers may be under pressure, working with limited information, or trying to check a box quickly after a safety concern. Sellers may be leaning on what has always been called the “industry standard,” even when that standard has not been tested in the specific application being sold.

That is where the industry has to be more honest.

If a method has not been tested for use on doors, we should not talk about it as if it has. If a system does not meet the installation requirements being referenced, we should not gloss over that detail. And if a customer is making a safety decision, they deserve clear information about what has been tested, what has not, and where the limitations are.

This is not about creating fear. It is about creating transparency.

The buyers in this space include schools, public facilities, businesses, and organizations trying to make real safety decisions. They are trusting our industry to help them understand the difference between a product, an installation method, and a tested security outcome.

We owe them more than vague claims and assumptions.

The security film industry has an opportunity to raise the standard. That starts with clearer testing, better education, and more honest conversations about what different anchoring methods can and cannot do, especially on doors.

Because if the industry wants to be trusted, it has to be willing to say the quiet part out loud:

Not every commonly used method has been properly tested for every application. And when safety is the promise, that distinction matters.

Zero Trust has become a common cybersecurity conversation, but it often stops too early.

Most organizations think about Zero Trust in terms of networks, devices, applications, and data. That makes sense, but it misses one of the most obvious parts of the security equation: the physical door.

If someone can physically access a server room, infrastructure area, operations center, lab, or restricted workplace, then physical access becomes part of the cybersecurity conversation too.

Traditional access credentials still carry a major weakness. Cards, fobs, PINs, phones, and watches authenticate what someone has, not necessarily who they are.

Cards can be lost, cloned, shared, or stolen. PINs can be guessed, watched, or passed along. Phones and wearables can be borrowed, relayed, hacked, or compromised.

That does not mean these credentials have no place. It means we need to be more honest about what they prove and what they do not.

In a modern threat environment, relying only on external credentials creates risk because the credential exists outside the person. Once that credential is transferred, copied, or compromised, the access decision becomes less about identity and more about possession.

That is where stronger identity verification needs to become part of the physical access conversation.

Biometrics are one example of how the model can shift from verifying the object someone carries to verifying the person requesting access. The more important point is not the specific technology. It is the security principle behind it.

Physical access should be evaluated with the same seriousness as digital access:

No inherited trust.
No assumption that possession equals identity.
No belief that being inside the building means someone is automatically trusted.

The physical layer matters because cybersecurity does not only happen behind a screen. It starts with controlling who can reach the systems, spaces, infrastructure, and people that organizations depend on.

The access control industry has an opportunity to bring Zero Trust thinking closer to the door. That means asking harder questions about credentials, identity, verification, and where trust is being assumed instead of proven.

The future of access control should not only be about what someone presents.

It should be about whether the system can confidently verify who is actually standing there.

👀 As Seen in the PhySec Community this Week:

#ai

• Salvatore D’Agostino shared

  -Internet of shit:

  -Google Chrome silently installs a 4 GB AI model on your device without consent

  -Cyber Pioneers Ponder Past as Prologue

#deal-activity

• Tony Dong shared

  Berkshire Hathaway’s Allegion plc Stake

#marketing-communications

• Ankit Parikh shared

  Redesigning Your Marketing Organization for the Agentic Age

#security-research

• Salvatore D’Agostino shared

  Guidelines for the Secure Deployment of RESTful Web APIs

DHI All Access is headed to Nashville May 27–29, bringing together the architectural opening professionals helping shape what comes next for the industry.

We’ll be there attending and joining the conversation around how the opening is evolving from a door, frame, and lockset into an identity, software, and liability discussion. Register here.

Unify is coming up June 16-18, and we’ll be there joining the conversation on what Aliro could mean for the commercial sector.

Lee will be moderating a session on why commercial may be the next sector to move, covering interoperability, offline and online access, quantum readiness, multi-badge challenges, and what it takes to move Aliro from inevitable to deployed. Register here.

ACS26, The Access Control Summit, is heading to New Zealand in 2026, hosted in collaboration with our city-host, Gallagher Security. Join us October 7–8, and sign up here to be notified first when registration goes live.