A new study released by Frost & Sullivan shows what drives security investments
As the recent incidents that involved Saudi Aramco and RasGas have shown, cyberattacks can have a major impact on the operation of oil and gas companies. Such threats have made companies from this sector invest more in security.According to a new study from Frost & Sullivan, the security of critical facilities is a top priority for organizations from the oil and gas sector because they’re concerned about the impact of both physical and cyber threats on their operations.
“Global oil and gas companies are investing capital in new infrastructure projects, driving the need for security solutions at these facilities,” explained Frost & Sullivan Aerospace, Defence & Security Senior Research Analyst Anshul Sharma.
“With increasing awareness of threats, companies are adopting a security-risk management approach and implementing risk assessment of their facilities to ensure security Return on Investment (ROI).”
The experts highlight the fact that companies prefer total solutions that allow them to easily integrate individual security systems – video surveillance, access control, and intrusion detection – into one platform.
When it comes to cyber, the economic impact and financial damage caused by attacks can be highly significant, regardless whether they’re terrorist attacks or information theft.
On the other hand, it depends a great deal on the attackers’ motivation. The consequences of an attack on industrial control systems can be more serious than the ones of a cyberattack whose main goal is the theft of sensitive information.
“Suppliers of security systems should aim at designing an integrated security solution that proactively identifies, assesses and mitigates risks and threats originating from within the facility as well as from well beyond it,” Sharma added.
“On their part, oil and gas companies and operators of critical oil and gas facilities need to do a threat and risk assessment of their facility to ensure there is no over spending or under spending on security-related matters.”