Hardware Visibility: The Missing Layer in Industrial Cybersecurity

How Manufacturing and Infrastructure Organisations Can Reduce Cyber Risk Without Disrupting Operations Manufacturing and infrastructure organisations operate in environments where stability, safety, and uptime are critical. While cyber threats continue to grow in sophistication and frequency, many organisations remain cautious about introducing new security measures into operational environments. The concern is understandable: any disruption to production systems, control networks, or critical services can result in significant financial loss, safety risks, and reputational damage. However, avoiding security improvements altogether creates an equally serious risk, leaving systems exposed to threats that operate quietly and persistently. Why Uptime Is the Highest Priority in Industrial Environments In industrial settings, uptime is not simply a performance metric—it is a fundamental requirement. Manufacturing plants rely on tightly coordinated processes where delays or interruptions can cascade across production lines. Infrastructure operators manage systems that provide essential services such as power, water, transport, and communications, where outages can affect entire communities. Because of this, operational technology environments are designed to prioritise predictability and stability over flexibility. Changes are carefully planned, tested, and approved, and unexpected behaviour is treated as a serious incident. Cybersecurity solutions that introduce uncertainty, increase latency, or modify system behaviour are therefore viewed as potential threats rather than safeguards. This mindset, while necessary for safe operations, makes it difficult to adopt traditional security tools without compromising operational goals. The Risks of Intrusive Cybersecurity Approaches Many conventional cybersecurity tools depend on active scanning, frequent updates, or software agents installed directly on endpoints. In IT environments, these practices are standard and generally well tolerated. In industrial environments, however, they can introduce unacceptable risk. Legacy devices may not support agents, scanning can overload fragile systems, and unplanned network traffic can interfere with time-sensitive communications. As a result, organisations often restrict or disable security controls in operational environments. While this reduces the risk of immediate disruption, it also creates long-term vulnerabilities. Systems may appear stable while remaining completely unmonitored from a security perspective. Over time, this approach increases exposure to threats that exploit the absence of visibility rather than weaknesses in software. How Threats Exploit Operational Blind Spots Attackers are increasingly targeting industrial environments precisely because of these constraints. Hardware-based threats are particularly effective, as they do not rely on exploiting software vulnerabilities or triggering suspicious network activity. Malicious USB devices, compromised field equipment, or altered replacement components can be introduced during routine activities such as maintenance, upgrades, or supplier deliveries. Once connected, these devices may operate silently for extended periods, collecting data, manipulating processes, or maintaining persistent access. Because they function below the software layer, they often bypass traditional security controls entirely. In environments where physical access is distributed and third-party involvement is common, these threats can remain undetected while organisations focus on maintaining operational continuity. Gaining Visibility Without Disruption To reduce cyber risk without compromising uptime, industrial organisations need visibility solutions that are designed specifically for sensitive environments. Rather than relying on intrusive techniques, security controls must be passive, non-disruptive, and compatible with legacy systems. Hardware-level visibility meets these requirements by identifying devices based on their physical characteristics instead of software behaviour. Passive monitoring allows organisations to gain insight into connected devices without generating additional traffic, installing agents, or altering system configurations. This makes it possible to detect unmanaged, unauthorised, or rogue hardware without affecting performance or stability. By focusing on observation rather than interaction, organisations can achieve visibility while preserving operational integrity. Strengthening Security While Preserving Operational Stability When organisations gain accurate visibility into their hardware environments, they can make informed security decisions without introducing unnecessary risk. Hardware-centric visibility enables teams to build reliable asset inventories, understand normal device behaviour, and identify anomalies early. This approach supports proactive risk management rather than reactive incident response. Importantly, improved visibility does not require changes to existing workflows or operational processes. Security teams can monitor environments continuously while operations teams maintain control over system changes. This alignment between security and operations reduces friction, improves collaboration, and enables sustainable security improvements over time. Building a Sustainable Security Strategy for Industrial Operations Reducing cyber risk in manufacturing and infrastructure environments does not require choosing between protection and performance. By adopting non-intrusive, hardware-centric security approaches, organisations can address modern threats while preserving the stability their operations depend on. As industrial systems continue to evolve and connectivity increases, the ability to gain visibility without disruption will become a defining factor in effective cybersecurity strategies. Organisations that invest in this approach are better positioned to protect critical systems, meet compliance requirements, and maintain long-term operational resilience in an increasingly complex threat landscape.

Why Infrastructure Cybersecurity Fails Without Hardware Visibility Critical infrastructure organisations operate some of the most complex and high-risk environments in the world. Energy networks, transport systems, utilities, telecommunications, and national infrastructure rely on highly connected operational technology environments where uptime, safety, and reliability are non-negotiable. Despite this, many infrastructure operators continue to rely on traditional cybersecurity tools that were designed for corporate IT networks, not mission-critical systems. This disconnect creates hidden risks that threaten both operational continuity and public trust. The Unique Cybersecurity Challenges of Infrastructure Environments Infrastructure networks are fundamentally different from standard enterprise environments. They often span vast geographic areas, incorporate legacy systems, and support a wide range of devices including SCADA controllers, sensors, field equipment, and industrial gateways. Many of these devices were never designed with modern cybersecurity in mind and cannot support agents, software updates, or active scanning. As infrastructure systems become more interconnected, the number of devices connected to operational networks continues to grow. Without complete visibility, organisations struggle to maintain an accurate understanding of what hardware is present, where it is located, and whether it should be trusted. This lack of awareness creates opportunities for unmanaged, unauthorised, or compromised devices to operate unnoticed within critical systems. Why Traditional Security Tools Miss Infrastructure Risks Traditional cybersecurity platforms focus on software identity, network traffic patterns, and user authentication. While these controls are valuable, they provide limited protection in infrastructure environments where many devices do not behave like standard IT endpoints. Industrial hardware often communicates intermittently, uses proprietary protocols, or remains silent for long periods, making detection based on traffic analysis unreliable. In addition, many infrastructure organisations restrict active scanning to avoid performance degradation or system instability. This necessary caution means that large portions of the environment remain effectively invisible to security teams. As a result, hardware-based threats can persist undetected, bypassing controls that were never designed to verify the physical identity of connected devices. Hardware-Based Threats in Critical Infrastructure Hardware-based attacks represent a growing threat to infrastructure operators. Rogue field devices, compromised replacement components, and malicious peripherals can be introduced during maintenance, upgrades, or third-party interventions. Once connected, these devices may provide persistent access, manipulate operational data, or interfere with system behaviour. Unlike software-based attacks, hardware threats operate below the operating system level. They can evade endpoint detection, antivirus, and intrusion prevention tools entirely. In infrastructure environments where physical access is often distributed and difficult to monitor, these risks are particularly challenging to detect and control using traditional cybersecurity methods. Compliance and Regulatory Pressure on Infrastructure Operators Infrastructure organisations face increasing regulatory scrutiny and compliance obligations. Frameworks such as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, CIS Controls, and sector-specific regulations require operators to identify, manage, and monitor all connected assets. Accurate asset inventories are a foundational requirement for demonstrating compliance and managing risk. Without reliable hardware visibility, compliance efforts become reactive and manual. Asset records quickly become outdated as devices are added, replaced, or relocated. During audits or incident investigations, the inability to prove control over connected hardware can lead to regulatory penalties, operational delays, and reputational damage. Why Hardware Visibility Is Essential for Infrastructure Security To secure infrastructure environments effectively, organisations must address cybersecurity at the physical layer. Hardware visibility enables operators to identify every connected device based on its physical characteristics rather than relying solely on software identifiers or network behaviour. This approach provides a complete and accurate inventory across both IT and OT environments. By establishing hardware visibility, infrastructure operators can detect rogue or unauthorised devices in real time, enforce device-level trust policies, and maintain continuous awareness without disrupting operations. Passive monitoring techniques allow visibility to be gained safely, even in environments where uptime and stability are critical. Strengthening Infrastructure Resilience Through Hardware-Centric Security Infrastructure security is ultimately about resilience. The ability to detect threats early, respond effectively, and maintain safe, reliable operations depends on understanding exactly what hardware is connected to critical systems. Hardware-centric security provides the foundation needed to reduce risk, support compliance, and protect essential services. As infrastructure networks continue to evolve, relying solely on traditional cybersecurity tools is no longer sufficient. Organisations that invest in hardware visibility gain the insight needed to secure complex environments, protect against emerging threats, and ensure the continuity of services that communities depend on every day.

Why Traditional Cybersecurity Fails in Manufacturing OT Environments Manufacturing organisations are facing unprecedented cyber risk as operational technology environments become more connected and digitally integrated. While this connectivity improves efficiency and visibility, it also exposes production systems to threats that traditional cybersecurity tools are not equipped to handle. Many manufacturers continue to rely on IT-focused security solutions, assuming they can be extended to OT environments. In practice, this assumption creates critical security gaps that attackers are increasingly able to exploit. The Visibility Problem in Manufacturing Networks A fundamental weakness in manufacturing cybersecurity is the lack of accurate visibility into connected devices. OT environments are made up of a diverse mix of equipment, including legacy machines, PLCs, sensors, controllers, and specialised industrial systems. Many of these assets were deployed years or even decades ago, long before modern cybersecurity considerations existed. As a result, they often cannot support agents, active scans, or modern management protocols. Without reliable visibility, manufacturers are unable to answer basic but critical questions: what devices are connected, where they are located, who owns them, and whether they are authorised. Traditional security tools depend heavily on IP addresses, software identifiers, or user credentials, which provide an incomplete picture in OT environments. This lack of clarity creates blind spots where unmanaged or unauthorised hardware can operate undetected. IT and OT Convergence Increases Hardware Risk As IT and OT networks converge, the attack surface in manufacturing environments expands significantly. Remote access for engineers, cloud-connected monitoring systems, and third-party maintenance tools introduce new entry points into production networks. While these connections are often necessary for operational efficiency, they also increase the risk of unauthorised hardware being introduced into sensitive environments. Devices such as laptops, diagnostic tools, USB drives, and replacement components are frequently connected during maintenance or upgrades. In many cases, these devices are trusted by default, with little or no verification of their origin or integrity. Traditional cybersecurity controls focus on authenticating users, not the physical devices themselves. This creates an opportunity for rogue or spoofed hardware to gain access to critical systems without triggering alerts. Why Agent-Based Security Does Not Work in OT Most conventional cybersecurity solutions rely on agents, active scanning, or continuous interrogation of systems to detect threats. While effective in corporate IT environments, these techniques are often unsuitable for manufacturing operations. OT systems are highly sensitive to performance changes, network latency, and unexpected traffic. Even minor disruptions can halt production lines, damage equipment, or compromise safety. Because of these risks, many manufacturers limit or completely disable active security controls in OT environments. This trade-off between security and uptime leaves critical systems exposed to threats that operate silently at the hardware level. The result is a security posture that appears compliant on paper but lacks real-world protection against physical-layer attacks. The Growing Threat of Hardware-Based Attacks Hardware-based threats represent one of the most significant and least understood risks in manufacturing cybersecurity. Malicious USB devices, compromised replacement parts, and implanted hardware can bypass software-based controls entirely. Once connected, these devices can intercept communications, manipulate processes, or provide persistent access to attackers. Unlike malware, hardware threats do not rely on exploiting operating systems or applications. They operate below the software layer, making them invisible to traditional endpoint detection, antivirus, and network monitoring tools. In manufacturing environments where physical access is often easier to obtain, these threats pose a serious risk to intellectual property, production integrity, and operational continuity. Compliance Challenges Without Accurate Asset Inventories Manufacturers are increasingly required to comply with cybersecurity frameworks and standards such as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and CIS Controls. These frameworks place strong emphasis on asset identification, inventory management, and continuous monitoring. Without accurate visibility into hardware assets, compliance becomes a manual and error-prone process. Many organisations rely on spreadsheets or outdated CMDBs that quickly fall out of sync with reality. Devices are added, removed, or replaced without proper documentation, increasing audit risk and operational overhead. In the event of an incident or regulatory review, the inability to demonstrate control over connected assets can have serious financial and reputational consequences. Why Hardware Visibility Is the Foundation of OT Security To effectively secure manufacturing OT environments, organisations need to move beyond traditional cybersecurity approaches and address risk at the physical layer. Hardware visibility provides a reliable foundation by identifying devices based on their physical characteristics rather than software attributes. This approach enables manufacturers to see every connected device, including those that are unmanaged, legacy, or intentionally hidden. By establishing accurate hardware visibility, manufacturers can enforce zero-trust principles for devices, validate third-party equipment, and detect rogue or spoofed hardware without disrupting operations. Passive, non-intrusive monitoring allows security teams to gain insight without impacting production systems or introducing additional risk. Building Resilient Manufacturing Operations Through Hardware-Centric Security Manufacturers that adopt a hardware-centric approach to cybersecurity are better positioned to protect their operations in an increasingly complex threat landscape. By understanding exactly what is connected to their networks, they can reduce cyber risk, safeguard intellectual property, and maintain operational uptime. As manufacturing continues to modernise, traditional cybersecurity tools alone are no longer sufficient. Visibility at the hardware layer is essential for securing OT environments, meeting compliance requirements, and ensuring long-term resilience. Organisations that address these challenges proactively will be better equipped to protect their production environments today and adapt to emerging threats in the future.

Introd uction: Shadow IT Was Just the Beginning For years, CISOs have battled Shadow IT — the apps, cloud services, and software tools users bring into the organisation without approval. Most security teams now have processes to monitor, restrict, or integrate those unauthorised services. But a new, far more dangerous threat is emerging: Shadow Hardware. These are the physical devices — many of them small, discreet, or seemingly harmless — that enter your environment without approval, monitoring, or security validation. They connect instantly, operate silently, and pose a level of risk that Shadow IT never could. Unmanaged and unseen hardware isn’t just an operational problem. It’s becoming a major compliance challenge, particularly for frameworks that assume complete asset visibility. CISOs are now realising that if Shadow IT was a storm, Shadow Hardware is the hurricane behind it. What Exactly Is Shadow Hardware? Shadow Hardware refers to any physical device connected to your environment without explicit approval or visibility. These devices often enter networks unnoticed because traditional tools rely on agent installations, software identifiers, or manual onboarding processes. Shadow Hardware includes: USB devices that impersonate keyboards or network adapters IoT sensors and smart devices deployed without IT oversight Personal laptops, tablets, or phones connected to internal networks Rogue access points or Wi-Fi repeaters Unauthorised peripherals such as cameras, dongles, or storage devices Devices intentionally disguised or spoofed to blend in These assets create a blind spot that software-based tools simply cannot close. Shadow Hardware thrives in environments where users can connect any device to a port, plug into a network, or join a wireless segment with ease. Why Shadow Hardware Is a Bigger Problem Than Shadow IT Shadow IT creates data and compliance challenges, but Shadow Hardware creates something far more serious: direct network risk. Once a physical device connects, it’s inside the boundary. It doesn’t need credentials, It doesn’t need permission, It just needs a port. This makes Shadow Hardware particularly dangerous because: Many devices can spoof trusted identities, making them appear legitimate. A compromised device can bypass access controls before software tools even detect it. Rogue hardware can exfiltrate data, create backdoors, or manipulate network flows. Insider threats can introduce hardware tools without leaving a digital trace. IoT devices often run outdated firmware and default credentials. Shadow Hardware turns the physical layer into a hidden attack surface — one that traditional cybersecurity stacks were never built to see. Why Frameworks Are Tightening Requirements Around Hardware Visibility Frameworks like NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and CISA BOD 23-01 increasingly emphasise complete asset visibility — including physical devices. They assume organisations can confidently answer questions like: What devices are connected right now? Who authorised them? Are they genuine? Do they comply with policy? Are they managed, unmanaged, or rogue? For many organisations, the answer is: “We don’t know.” This uncertainty is exactly what regulators are trying to eliminate. Compliance frameworks expect real-time accuracy, not estimates. Shadow Hardware makes compliance nearly impossible because it operates outside the systems designed to track assets. If you can’t see the device, you can’t secure it — and you certainly can’t prove compliance. The Visibility Gap: Why Traditional Tools Can't Detect Shadow Hardware Most cybersecurity tools depend on software fingerprints. They identify assets through methods like agent installations, MAC addresses, vendor IDs, operating system reports and authenticated scans. But Shadow Hardware doesn’t have to follow these rules. A rogue USB can claim to be a keyboard. A malicious access point can spoof a trusted MAC address. A compromised device can masquerade as something benign. When tools rely on what a device claims to be, they become easy to fool. Shadow Hardware exploits this flaw by hiding in the gaps — between ports, between scans, and between layers of software visibility. This is why the physical layer has become the newest front in cybersecurity. And it’s where Sepio stands out. How Sepio Exposes Shadow Hardware Instantly Sepio’s Asset Risk Management (ARM) platform introduces a radically different approach to device visibility. Instead of relying on software identifiers or installed agents, it identifies devices using Hardware DNA — a fingerprint based on physical and electrical characteristics. This means that even if a device tries to disguise itself, Sepio sees its real identity. When Shadow Hardware connects, Sepio: Recognises the device instantly Detects whether it matches an approved profile Flags rogue or previously unseen devices Identifies spoofed peripherals Assigns a risk score based on behaviour and trust level Triggers enforcement actions automatically This closes the visibility gap completely. No Shadow Hardware can operate without immediate detection. Shadow Hardware and Compliance: The Coming Storm for CISOs Compliance is shifting from documentation to evidence. Regulators and auditors no longer accept theoretical asset inventories — they want real-time facts. Shadow Hardware disrupts compliance across multiple areas: NIST CSF: violates the Identify and Protect functions by introducing unverified assets. CIS Controls 1–2: breaks the requirement to inventory and control enterprise and software assets. CISA BOD 23-01: makes continuous asset discovery impossible. GDPR Article 32: undermines security of processing by enabling unauthorised data access. A single rogue device can invalidate your compliance posture — even if everything else is aligned. CISOs that mastered Shadow IT must now apply the same discipline, vigilance, and visibility to hardware. How Zerium Helps Organisations Eliminate Shadow Hardware Technology is only half the answer. To truly eliminate Shadow Hardware, organisations need strategy, policy, and operational implementation — all of which Zerium provides. As the UK’s authorised partner for Sepio, Zerium helps organisations: Establish hardware-layer Zero Trust policies Integrate Hardware DNA insights into compliance programmes Build processes to manage and verify all devices Detect, classify, and respond to rogue hardware activity Align with frameworks including NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and CISA directives Reduce risk in environments where unmanaged devices are common Zerium makes hardware visibility not just possible, but practical — and sustainable. Conclusion: Shadow Hardware Is the New Frontier — Visibility Is the New Requirement Shadow IT changed how CISOs think about applications. Shadow Hardware is about to change how they think about everything else. Devices that operate outside approval are no longer rare — they’re becoming the rule in hybrid workplaces, IoT-rich environments, and distributed networks. To meet modern compliance expectations and build a truly secure Zero Trust environment, CISOs must gain full, continuous visibility into the physical layer. With Sepio’s Hardware DNA technology and Zerium’s framework-aligned expertise , organisations can finally eliminate the blind spots Shadow Hardware depends on. Because in the modern enterprise, if you can’t see the device, you can’t trust it. And if you can’t trust it — you can’t secure it.

Introd uction: Shadow IT Was Just the Beginning For years, CISOs have battled Shadow IT — the apps, cloud services, and software tools users bring into the organisation without approval. Most security teams now have processes to monitor, restrict, or integrate those unauthorised services. But a new, far more dangerous threat is emerging: Shadow Hardware. These are the physical devices — many of them small, discreet, or seemingly harmless — that enter your environment without approval, monitoring, or security validation. They connect instantly, operate silently, and pose a level of risk that Shadow IT never could. Unmanaged and unseen hardware isn’t just an operational problem. It’s becoming a major compliance challenge, particularly for frameworks that assume complete asset visibility. CISOs are now realising that if Shadow IT was a storm, Shadow Hardware is the hurricane behind it. What Exactly Is Shadow Hardware? Shadow Hardware refers to any physical device connected to your environment without explicit approval or visibility. These devices often enter networks unnoticed because traditional tools rely on agent installations, software identifiers, or manual onboarding processes. Shadow Hardware includes: USB devices that impersonate keyboards or network adapters IoT sensors and smart devices deployed without IT oversight Personal laptops, tablets, or phones connected to internal networks Rogue access points or Wi-Fi repeaters Unauthorised peripherals such as cameras, dongles, or storage devices Devices intentionally disguised or spoofed to blend in These assets create a blind spot that software-based tools simply cannot close. Shadow Hardware thrives in environments where users can connect any device to a port, plug into a network, or join a wireless segment with ease. Why Shadow Hardware Is a Bigger Problem Than Shadow IT Shadow IT creates data and compliance challenges, but Shadow Hardware creates something far more serious: direct network risk. Once a physical device connects, it’s inside the boundary. It doesn’t need credentials, It doesn’t need permission, It just needs a port. This makes Shadow Hardware particularly dangerous because: Many devices can spoof trusted identities, making them appear legitimate. A compromised device can bypass access controls before software tools even detect it. Rogue hardware can exfiltrate data, create backdoors, or manipulate network flows. Insider threats can introduce hardware tools without leaving a digital trace. IoT devices often run outdated firmware and default credentials. Shadow Hardware turns the physical layer into a hidden attack surface — one that traditional cybersecurity stacks were never built to see. Why Frameworks Are Tightening Requirements Around Hardware Visibility Frameworks like NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and CISA BOD 23-01 increasingly emphasise complete asset visibility — including physical devices. They assume organisations can confidently answer questions like: What devices are connected right now? Who authorised them? Are they genuine? Do they comply with policy? Are they managed, unmanaged, or rogue? For many organisations, the answer is: “We don’t know.” This uncertainty is exactly what regulators are trying to eliminate. Compliance frameworks expect real-time accuracy, not estimates. Shadow Hardware makes compliance nearly impossible because it operates outside the systems designed to track assets. If you can’t see the device, you can’t secure it — and you certainly can’t prove compliance. The Visibility Gap: Why Traditional Tools Can't Detect Shadow Hardware Most cybersecurity tools depend on software fingerprints. They identify assets through methods like agent installations, MAC addresses, vendor IDs, operating system reports and authenticated scans. But Shadow Hardware doesn’t have to follow these rules. A rogue USB can claim to be a keyboard. A malicious access point can spoof a trusted MAC address. A compromised device can masquerade as something benign. When tools rely on what a device claims to be, they become easy to fool. Shadow Hardware exploits this flaw by hiding in the gaps — between ports, between scans, and between layers of software visibility. This is why the physical layer has become the newest front in cybersecurity. And it’s where Sepio stands out. How Sepio Exposes Shadow Hardware Instantly Sepio’s Asset Risk Management (ARM) platform introduces a radically different approach to device visibility. Instead of relying on software identifiers or installed agents, it identifies devices using Hardware DNA — a fingerprint based on physical and electrical characteristics. This means that even if a device tries to disguise itself, Sepio sees its real identity. When Shadow Hardware connects, Sepio: Recognises the device instantly Detects whether it matches an approved profile Flags rogue or previously unseen devices Identifies spoofed peripherals Assigns a risk score based on behaviour and trust level Triggers enforcement actions automatically This closes the visibility gap completely. No Shadow Hardware can operate without immediate detection. Shadow Hardware and Compliance: The Coming Storm for CISOs Compliance is shifting from documentation to evidence. Regulators and auditors no longer accept theoretical asset inventories — they want real-time facts. Shadow Hardware disrupts compliance across multiple areas: NIST CSF: violates the Identify and Protect functions by introducing unverified assets. CIS Controls 1–2: breaks the requirement to inventory and control enterprise and software assets. CISA BOD 23-01: makes continuous asset discovery impossible. GDPR Article 32: undermines security of processing by enabling unauthorised data access. A single rogue device can invalidate your compliance posture — even if everything else is aligned. CISOs that mastered Shadow IT must now apply the same discipline, vigilance, and visibility to hardware. How Zerium Helps Organisations Eliminate Shadow Hardware Technology is only half the answer. To truly eliminate Shadow Hardware, organisations need strategy, policy, and operational implementation — all of which Zerium provides. As the UK’s authorised partner for Sepio, Zerium helps organisations: Establish hardware-layer Zero Trust policies Integrate Hardware DNA insights into compliance programmes Build processes to manage and verify all devices Detect, classify, and respond to rogue hardware activity Align with frameworks including NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and CISA directives Reduce risk in environments where unmanaged devices are common Zerium makes hardware visibility not just possible, but practical — and sustainable. Conclusion: Shadow Hardware Is the New Frontier — Visibility Is the New Requirement Shadow IT changed how CISOs think about applications. Shadow Hardware is about to change how they think about everything else. Devices that operate outside approval are no longer rare — they’re becoming the rule in hybrid workplaces, IoT-rich environments, and distributed networks. To meet modern compliance expectations and build a truly secure Zero Trust environment, CISOs must gain full, continuous visibility into the physical layer. With Sepio’s Hardware DNA technology and Zerium’s framework-aligned expertise , organisations can finally eliminate the blind spots Shadow Hardware depends on. Because in the modern enterprise, if you can’t see the device, you can’t trust it. And if you can’t trust it — you can’t secure it.

Introduction: The Supply Chain Threat That’s Already Inside the Network Supply chain risk has become one of the biggest challenges in cybersecurity — but most organisations are only looking at one side of the problem. They examine software vulnerabilities, supplier credentials, delivery processes, and contractual obligations. Yet a far more dangerous threat often arrives quietly, hidden inside the devices themselves: compromised hardware. Modern attackers don’t need to breach your network directly. They infiltrate the supply chain upstream, embedding malicious components or modifying devices before they ever reach your organisation. By the time those devices plug into your infrastructure, the threat is already inside. This is the hardware supply chain risk most businesses are overlooking — and without visibility at the physical layer, you won’t know it’s there until it’s too late. Why Hardware Supply Chain Attacks Are So Effective Hardware compromises are incredibly difficult to detect with traditional cybersecurity tools. typical solutions focus on software behaviour, endpoint agents, OS integrity, or network traffic. But none of these tools verify the physical identity of the device itself. This is exactly why hardware-based attacks are so attractive to threat actors. A compromised device may look completely legitimate. It may run trusted software, behave normally, and pass all conventional security checks. Yet beneath the surface, it may contain malicious chips, altered circuitry, or hidden capabilities designed to intercept data, create backdoors, or pivot deeper into the network. These threats bypass software-based detection because they originate from the physical componentry — a layer most organisations simply don’t inspect. The danger is amplified by globalised manufacturing, third-party assemblers, and increasingly complex procurement chains. In short, businesses receive devices they assume are trustworthy, even though they have no visibility into how those devices were built, modified, or handled along the way. The Illusion of Trust in Today’s Hardware Supply Chain When a new device arrives, organisations tend to treat it as inherently trustworthy. Procurement teams validate warranties, IT verifies compatibility, and security teams ensure proper configurations. But none of these steps confirm whether the hardware itself was modified. Moreover, supply chain compromise doesn’t always happen intentionally. Sometimes it’s a result of poor quality control, insecure manufacturing environments, or unauthorised resellers introducing substitute components. Whatever the cause, the result is the same: devices enter your network with vulnerabilities you cannot see and cannot verify using standard security tools. This creates a dangerous assumption — that new hardware equals safe hardware. In reality, new hardware is one of the most unknown and least verified assets in any organisation. Why Traditional Security Tools Cannot Detect Hardware Tampering Endpoint agents, network scanners, and security suites depend on software identifiers — things like MAC addresses, vendor strings, driver information, and operating system details. A compromised device can mimic all of these. Software can lie. Hardware cannot. The hardware layer is the only place where tampering can be reliably detected, and yet it’s the one area most businesses have zero visibility into. This is why hardware supply chain attacks often remain undetected for months or even years. From the perspective of traditional tools, everything looks normal. Behind the scenes, a compromised component may be silently capturing keystrokes, creating a covert channel, or establishing a foothold inside your environment. To solve this problem, you need a way to verify devices based on their physical and electrical characteristics, not the data they report. This is exactly what Sepio introduces. How Sepio Identifies Compromised Hardware Before It Becomes a Threat Sepio’s Asset Risk Management (ARM) platform uses its patented Hardware DNA technology to identify devices at the most fundamental level possible — the physical layer. This approach doesn’t rely on agents, software, or device self-reporting. Instead, it analyses the unique electrical fingerprint of each device, comparing it against known trustworthy profiles. If a device contains unauthorised components, modified circuitry, or spoofed identifiers, its physical fingerprint simply won’t match. Sepio detects this instantly. This means hardware supply chain attacks are identified the moment the device connects — even if the device pretends to be legitimate, its software matches expected values, or no behaviour appears malicious. Sepio exposes the truth that other tools can’t see. This level of visibility is critical for organisations that rely on hardware from multiple suppliers, operate in regulated sectors, or manage environments where rogue devices could compromise safety, compliance, or sensitive data. From Procurement to Deployment: Closing the Hardware Trust Gap Hardware supply chain risk doesn’t end when a device is purchased — it continues throughout its lifecycle. Devices that appear trustworthy on Day 1 may be altered, swapped, or tampered with before deployment, during maintenance, or even by internal actors. Sepio gives organisations the ability to track and verify devices at every stage, ensuring that: the device you purchased is the device you installed, no unauthorised components have been added, no malicious peripherals have been attached, and no hidden hardware implants are operating on the network. This turns hardware trust into an ongoing, measurable security process rather than a one-time assumption. Why Zerium Is the Key to Successful Supply Chain Risk Mitigation Technology alone isn’t enough — organisations also need strategy, policy alignment, and operational expertise. That’s where Zerium comes in. As the UK’s authorised partner for Sepio, Zerium provides a complete approach to hardware supply chain risk, including: analysing procurement and asset onboarding processes, establishing hardware verification policies, aligning security controls with frameworks like NIST CSF and CIS Controls, ensuring continuous monitoring of hardware integrity, and integrating Sepio visibility into your wider security operations. This combination of technology and consulting ensures that supply chain risk is managed proactively, not reactively. Conclusion: You Can’t Trust What You Can’t See Hardware supply chain attacks aren’t theoretical — they’re happening today, and they’re getting harder to detect. Traditional tools can’t uncover them because they rely on software-based visibility, which attackers can easily manipulate. Sepio’s Hardware DNA technology changes the game by revealing the physical truth behind every device. And with Zerium’s expertise, organisations can transform that visibility into a complete supply chain security strategy. If you want genuine security, you need genuine hardware verification — because trust doesn’t start when the device arrives. It starts when you can finally see what it really is.

Security Has Outgrown the Agent For years, cybersecurity has relied on a familiar formula: install an agent, scan the device, feed the data into a central platform, and hope nothing slips through the cracks. But today’s environments don’t work that way anymore. Modern networks are a mix of managed endpoints, unmanaged IoT devices, BYOD, operational technology, contractor hardware, and peripherals that never support agents at all. The result? A huge portion of your environment becomes invisible the moment you rely solely on agent-based tools. This is where agentless cybersecurity — specifically passive hardware visibility — becomes not just beneficial, but essential. Why Agent-Based Tools No Longer Go Far Enough Agent-based solutions were designed for predictable environments: corporate laptops, servers, and standardised devices. But real-world infrastructure has shifted dramatically. Today’s organisations face challenges such as: Devices that cannot run agents (printers, sensors, CCTV, industrial controllers). Devices that should not run agents due to regulatory or operational constraints. Devices that will not run agents, because users disable them or they never install correctly. Devices that deliberately hide, spoofing their identity to evade detection. When visibility depends on agents, each of these devices becomes a blind spot. And blind spots are exactly where threats thrive. This creates a growing risk: the more diverse your hardware ecosystem becomes, the less effective your traditional security stack becomes at protecting it. The Rise of Passive, Agentless Threat Detection Agentless cybersecurity takes a completely different approach. Instead of interrogating devices directly, it observes the environment and identifies assets based on their physical and electrical signatures. This approach aligns perfectly with how modern networks actually behave: dynamic, complex, and full of unknown or unmanaged devices. Passive visibility allows organisations to: Discover every device the moment it connects. Identify unmanaged or rogue hardware that agents can’t detect. Eliminate the operational burden of installing and maintaining agents. Avoid downtime, disruption, or compatibility issues. Meet compliance requirements for continuous asset discovery. Instead of relying on devices to “self-report,” passive tools uncover the truth by analysing what’s really happening on the network. Why Sepio Leads the Agentless Cybersecurity Movement Sepio’s Asset Risk Management (ARM) platform goes beyond traditional agentless tools by using its patented Hardware DNA technology — a capability unmatched in the cybersecurity market. Rather than looking at software identifiers, IP addresses, or vendor strings, Sepio identifies devices based on their physical and electrical fingerprint. That means: Spoofed devices can’t fake their identity. Rogue peripherals can’t impersonate trusted devices. Hardware implants can’t hide behind legitimate software signatures. This kind of visibility is crucial in environments where trust can't rely on user behaviour, agent installations, or software integrity alone. Sepio sees every device — including the ones you didn’t know existed. Why Passive Hardware Visibility Changes the Entire Security Model What makes passive, agentless visibility transformative is that it solves problems organisations have struggled with for years, including: The problem of scale It doesn’t matter how many devices join your network — Sepio sees them instantly, with no configuration needed on the endpoint. The problem of compliance Frameworks like NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and CISA BOD 23-01 all require complete asset inventories. You simply cannot meet these requirements without full, agentless visibility. The problem of Zero Trust Zero Trust collapses when unknown devices slip through. Passive hardware fingerprinting ensures that trust starts at the physical layer — not the software layer. The problem of operational disruption Deploying agents across thousands of devices is resource-intensive. Passive systems detect everything without touching the endpoint. In other words, passive hardware visibility doesn’t just improve security — it simplifies it. Agentless Cybersecurity in the Real World Imagine this scenario: A malicious USB device is plugged into a workstation. Traditional tools may see “a keyboard,” because that’s what the device claims to be. An agent might not even detect it at all. But Sepio identifies that the device’s electrical fingerprint doesn’t match a legitimate keyboard — flagging it instantly as rogue. No agents. No scans. No assumptions. Just truth. This is what agentless cybersecurity was designed for: real-time, real-world hardware threats that existing tools simply miss. Why Organisations Are Moving Toward Agentless Strategies Across finance, healthcare, critical infrastructure, government, and manufacturing, organisations are reaching the same conclusion: Agentless, passive detection is no longer optional — it’s inevitable. The reasons are clear: It’s faster than agent deployments. It’s broader than software-based visibility. It’s more accurate than self-reported device data. It’s fully aligned with Zero Trust and compliance frameworks. It eliminates shadow hardware, not just shadow IT. When paired with Zerium’s consulting expertise, organisations gain the strategy, implementation support, and framework alignment needed to turn passive visibility into operational resilience. Conclusion: The Future of Threat Detection Is Agentless Cybersecurity has evolved beyond the limits of agent-based tools. Modern networks need continuous, passive, hardware-level visibility — the kind of insight that only agentless systems can deliver. With Sepio’s Hardware DNA technology and Zerium’s framework-aligned guidance, organisations finally gain a complete, accurate view of every device touching their infrastructure. No agents. No blind spots. No unknown devices. Just total visibility — the foundation of modern cybersecurity.

Zero Trust Has a Blind Spot Zero Trust has become the gold standard of modern cybersecurity. The principle is simple: never trust, always verify. Organisations spend vast resources building architectures where every user, application, and network request must authenticate before access is granted. Yet even the most mature Zero-Trust environments share a critical flaw — they rarely verify the hardware itself. Unseen, unmanaged, or spoofed devices can silently bypass Zero-Trust controls, undermining every layer of security above them. To achieve genuine Zero Trust, you must start where trust begins: the physical device. Zero Trust Explained — and Where It Falls Short The Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) framework, as defined by NIST SP 800-207, centres on continuous verification. Every action, user, and system must be authenticated and authorised before being trusted. Most organisations interpret this through: Identity and access management (IAM) solutions. Network segmentation and micro-perimeters. Continuous monitoring and anomaly detection. These are all critical — but they rely on one key assumption: that every connected device is known, verified, and trustworthy. Unfortunately, that assumption is often false. Traditional Zero-Trust models focus on software and credentials, not the hardware underneath. This leaves the hardware layer — the literal foundation of the network — outside the trust equation. The Hardware Blind Spot in Zero Trust Every day, new devices join enterprise networks: laptops, IoT sensors, USB peripherals, industrial controllers, contractor systems, and more. Not all of them are managed. Not all of them are legitimate. A few examples of how the hardware layer undermines Zero Trust: Rogue USB devices that masquerade as keyboards or network adapters. Spoofed peripherals that impersonate trusted endpoints. Unmanaged IoT devices connected in shadow IT environments. Supply-chain implants that introduce malicious components before deployment. Each of these can bypass traditional identity checks — because the Zero-Trust system recognises the software, but not the physical origin of the device. Without hardware verification, Zero Trust becomes half-trust. The Missing Layer: Hardware-Level Verification A true Zero-Trust model must extend verification to every connected device — down to the hardware fingerprint. That’s where Sepio’s Asset Risk Management (ARM) platform delivers something transformative. Using its patented Hardware DNA technology, Sepio doesn’t rely on software identifiers or agent-based checks. Instead, it analyses the physical and electrical characteristics of every connected device, creating a unique, immutable fingerprint that can’t be cloned or spoofed. This provides: Complete visibility of every device — managed, unmanaged, or rogue. Real-time detection of unauthorised hardware activity. Policy enforcement that automatically blocks or isolates unknown devices. Zero-trust validation at the hardware layer, not just the logical one. Through its partnership with Zerium, Sepio’s technology is deployed across UK organisations looking to achieve true Zero Trust — not just the version that stops at the software layer. Integrating Hardware Visibility into a Zero-Trust Framework To build a Zero-Trust strategy that includes the hardware layer, organisations should follow these key steps: Identify Every Device (The Foundation Layer) Begin with full asset discovery. Use agentless tools like Sepio to detect every connected device — even those unmanaged or hidden. Build a complete asset inventory that feeds into your Zero-Trust policy engine. Verify Device Integrity (The Trust Layer) Establish trust based on physical device DNA, not just logical identity. Ensure every device connecting to your network matches a known, verified hardware fingerprint. Enforce Policy Automatically (The Control Layer) Integrate hardware visibility data into access control systems. Block, quarantine, or restrict unknown or unauthorised devices in real time. Monitor Continuously (The Assurance Layer) Trust is not static — verification must be continuous. Sepio provides real-time monitoring of all hardware changes or anomalies, alerting teams instantly to potential breaches. Align with Compliance Frameworks (The Governance Layer) Integrate this process with existing compliance goals — NIST CSF, CIS Controls, and CISA directives all require complete asset visibility. Prove compliance through verifiable data rather than assumptions. This structured approach creates a hardware-informed Zero-Trust model that closes the gap between physical and digital security. Why Hardware-Level Zero Trust Is Non-Negotiable Zero Trust without hardware verification is like locking your front door while leaving the window open. Attackers are increasingly exploiting devices and peripherals that traditional defences can’t see. By including the hardware layer: Insider threats are reduced — unauthorised devices can’t connect undetected. Compliance improves — frameworks like NIST and CISA require asset-level visibility. Incident response strengthens — faster detection and remediation of rogue devices. Confidence increases — Zero Trust becomes a provable, enforceable reality. The move toward hardware-level visibility isn’t optional anymore; it’s the next evolution of Zero Trust. How Zerium and Sepio Enable Hardware-Level Zero Trust Zerium, as the UK’s authorised Sepio partner, brings strategic expertise and implementation support to ensure a seamless transition to hardware-level Zero Trust. Zerium’s consulting process includes: Hardware risk assessments tailored to your existing Zero-Trust architecture. Policy and framework alignment with NIST, CIS, and CISA guidelines. Integration of Sepio’s visibility data into your security operations. Ongoing enablement, monitoring, and compliance validation. Together, Zerium and Sepio give organisations the ability to see, trust, and control every device — down to the port level. Trust Begins at the Physical Layer Zero Trust was never meant to stop at the network edge. It was meant to eliminate blind spots and enforce verification everywhere — including the hardware beneath the software. With Sepio’s hardware DNA and Zerium’s expertise, organisations can finally achieve the purest form of Zero Trust: One where no device connects unverified, no hardware remains invisible, and trust begins where it truly matters — at the physical layer. Because in the modern enterprise, Zero Trust starts with Zero Unknown Devices.

From Policy to Proof Every cybersecurity leader knows the CIS Critical Security Controls (CIS Controls). They’re one of the most widely adopted frameworks for improving cyber hygiene and reducing risk. But while most organisations document compliance, very few can prove it. The reason? Their visibility stops at the software layer. True implementation requires a complete view of hardware assets — the physical devices that support every system, connection, and user. That’s where Sepio’s Asset DNA technology, delivered in partnership with Zerium, transforms the CIS Controls from a checklist into a living, measurable defence framework. CIS Controls: A Quick Refresher The CIS Controls are a set of safeguards and best practices developed by the Center for Internet Security. They guide organisations toward prioritised, actionable improvements that reduce the most common cyber threats. The first five — often called the Foundational Controls — are especially critical:  Inventory and Control of Enterprise Assets Inventory and Control of Software Assets Data Protection Secure Configuration of Enterprise Assets and Software Account Management Every one of these controls assumes one fundamental capability: you can see and verify your assets. Without that visibility, compliance becomes theoretical — and risk management becomes reactive. The Problem: CIS Controls Assume Hardware Visibility Most compliance programmes rely on software-based discovery tools that track managed endpoints and applications. These tools work well for known assets but leave a vast blind spot at the hardware layer. This leads to several hidden risks: Unmanaged or rogue devices that connect undetected. Spoofed peripherals that impersonate trusted hardware. Shadow IT and IoT assets operating outside policy. Supply-chain implants introduced during procurement. Each of these breaks compliance with Control 1 (Inventory and Control of Enterprise Assets) — often without triggering an alert. To move from policy to proof, you need hardware DNA-level visibility — the ability to verify every physical device, not just the ones that report themselves. Sepio’s Asset DNA: The Missing Piece in CIS Implementation Sepio’s Asset Risk Management (ARM) platform introduces visibility where other tools stop. Its patented Hardware DNA technology analyses the electrical and physical characteristics of every connected device, creating an immutable fingerprint that can’t be spoofed or cloned. This unique approach provides: Agentless discovery – No need to install software or disrupt operations. Passive monitoring – Continuous hardware visibility across all environments. Real-time risk scoring – Instantly identifies rogue or unauthorised assets. Policy enforcement – Automatically blocks or isolates devices that don’t meet trust standards. By integrating this visibility into your CIS Controls implementation, you replace assumptions with evidence — and documentation with data. How Sepio + Zerium Operationalise the First Five CIS Controls Below is a practical breakdown of how Zerium and Sepio help organisations implement the first five CIS Controls in the field. Control 1: Inventory and Control of Enterprise Assets Challenge: You can’t manage what you can’t see — especially unmanaged or rogue hardware. Solution: Sepio discovers every connected device, using Hardware DNA to verify authenticity. Zerium aligns this visibility with your CIS asset management policies, ensuring your inventory is both accurate and auditable. Control 2: Inventory and Control of Software Assets Challenge: Rogue or unapproved hardware can run unverified software that escapes detection. Solution: By identifying the hardware first, Sepio ensures that only authorised devices — and therefore authorised software — can operate in your environment. Control 3: Data Protection Challenge: Unverified hardware introduces data leakage risks and regulatory exposure. Solution: Sepio blocks or isolates unauthorised devices, ensuring that only trusted hardware can access sensitive data or processing environments, aligning with GDPR and CIS requirements. Control 4: Secure Configuration of Enterprise Assets and Software Challenge: Devices configured outside of approved standards often enter networks undetected. Solution: Zerium helps align hardware configuration baselines with CIS standards, while Sepio continuously validates that each device matches its approved fingerprint. Control 5: Account Management Challenge: Hardware-level impersonation undermines identity-based security models. Solution: Hardware DNA provides a physical verification layer for devices associated with user accounts, preventing unauthorised access through spoofed endpoints. Turning Compliance into Continuous Assurance Implementing CIS Controls shouldn’t be a one-time project. With Sepio ARM, organisations achieve continuous compliance — hardware visibility that never stops monitoring. Here’s how Zerium enables this in practice: Integrate Sepio’s live asset data with your SIEM or compliance dashboards. Automate alerts and policy enforcement for rogue hardware events. Generate auditable reports that prove CIS Control alignment in real time. Receive expert guidance from Zerium’s cybersecurity consultants on adapting your control environment as frameworks evolve. This approach moves your organisation beyond compliance — toward operational assurance that scales with your infrastructure. The Business Case for Hardware-Level CIS Compliance Moving from paper compliance to hardware-level enforcement offers tangible business value: Reduced risk: Rogue or unmanaged devices are identified before they cause harm. Audit readiness: Real-time, verifiable asset data accelerates compliance reviews. Operational efficiency: Fewer false positives and reduced manual asset tracking. Regulatory alignment: Meets the asset visibility requirements of NIST, CISA BOD 23-01, and GDPR. In short, CIS Controls become more than policy — they become provable. Zerium: Turning Frameworks into Action As a UK-based cybersecurity consultancy and authorised Sepio partner, Zerium helps organisations translate cybersecurity frameworks into operational controls. Their CIS implementation methodology includes: Framework gap analysis and control mapping. Sepio ARM deployment and configuration. Customised policy alignment with CIS Controls 1–5. Continuous monitoring, reporting, and enablement. The result? Full lifecycle compliance — from framework interpretation to field execution. Conclusion: Frameworks Are the Map — Visibility Is the Compass The CIS Controls provide the roadmap for a secure enterprise. But without hardware-layer visibility, you’re navigating blind. By pairing Sepio’s Asset DNA technology with Zerium’s implementation expertise, organisations gain the power to: See every device. Verify every connection. Enforce every control. That’s how frameworks move from policy to proof — and from the boardroom to the battlefield of real-world cybersecurity.