Top Highlights
-
Safety and OT cybersecurity are inseparable: attacks on safety instrumented systems can create both cyber and process-safety incidents, as the 2017 TRITON/TRISIS case showed.
-
Standards already require coordination: ISA/IEC 61511 calls for SIS security risk assessments and resilience; ISA/IEC 62443 requires protection of safety systems from non-safety networks and secure operating practices.
-
Unify risk management and governance: align safety and cyber assessments, requirements, audits, competence, maintenance, change control and incident response—while ensuring cyber controls never undermine safety, or vice versa.
- The goal is one operational lifecycle: cross-staff HAZOP and cyber-risk reviews, manage work through plant MOC and permit processes, and verify safety functions after changes. Neither safety nor security teams can protect the plant alone.
Problem Explained
An ISASecure post argues that industrial asset owners should manage functional safety and OT cybersecurity as one lifecycle, rather than as separate programs. Rafael Barreto Jijón, managing director of OT-Knight, says safety instrumented systems protect people and processes, but can also be targets for cyberattacks. The 2017 TRITON/TRISIS malware incident illustrates why: an attack on a safety system can become both a cybersecurity breach and a safety threat. Industrial operators and the workers and communities depending on their facilities are therefore at risk.
Barreto Jijón recommends coordinating risk assessments, governance, engineering, maintenance, change management and incident response under existing ISA/IEC standards. He says the standards already call for safeguards such as access controls, resilience and separation of safety systems from non-safety networks. In short, safety and security requirements must be reconciled, not allowed to conflict. Industrial Cyber reported on the post, which appeared on ISASecure.
Critical Concerns
ISA/IEC standards emphasize that industrial control systems need safety and cybersecurity designed together, as OT-Knight’s Barreto Jijón notes. This issue can reach a business directly through exposed operational technology—or indirectly through a supplier, utility, or service provider. If attackers disrupt control systems, operations may stop, equipment may be damaged, and workers or the public could face physical danger. Consequently, a company may incur lost revenue, recovery costs, regulatory scrutiny, legal claims, and lasting reputational harm. Even firms without factories can suffer when a critical partner’s systems fail. Therefore, integrated protection is not merely a technical concern; it is a business-continuity and safety priority.
Possible Action Plan
Timely remediation limits cyber exposure without compromising the safety functions that keep industrial operations within safe bounds.
Mitigation and Remediation
- Assess combined risk. Evaluate how the vulnerability or control gap could affect both cybersecurity and process safety, including potential impacts on people, the environment, and operations.
- Confirm affected assets. Maintain and verify an inventory of OT devices, software, connections, and safety systems; identify exposure and operational criticality.
- Apply safe fixes. Prioritize vendor-approved patches and configuration changes, testing them in a representative environment and scheduling deployment with operations and safety personnel.
- Use compensating controls. If a patch cannot be applied promptly, restrict network access, disable unnecessary services, strengthen authentication, or isolate affected equipment where safe and feasible.
- Strengthen segmentation and access. Limit pathways between IT, OT, and safety networks; enforce least privilege and tightly control remote access.
- Monitor for signs of compromise. Review OT network activity, system logs, and alerts for suspicious changes or communications, using methods that do not disrupt sensitive equipment.
- Coordinate response and recovery. Update incident procedures to include engineering, operations, safety, cybersecurity, and vendor contacts; define safe shutdown and recovery steps.
- Verify and document closure. Confirm that remediation works, safety functions remain effective, and residual risks are accepted by authorized personnel. Record decisions and lessons learned.
- Align governance and suppliers. Use applicable ISA/IEC requirements alongside the NIST CSF to guide risk management, and include security expectations in vendor and maintenance processes.
Advance Your Cyber Knowledge
Stay informed on the latest Threat Intelligence and Cyberattacks.
Learn more about global cybersecurity standards through the NIST Cybersecurity Framework.
Disclaimer: The information provided may not always be accurate or up to date. Please do your own research, as the cybersecurity landscape evolves rapidly. Intended for secondary references purposes only.
Cyberattacks-V1
