THANK YOU FOR SUBSCRIBING
× 
Enterprise Security Mag Weekly Brief
Be first to read the latest tech news, Industry Leader's Insights, and CIO interviews of medium and large enterprises exclusively from Enterprise Security Mag
Do Enterprises Need a Stronger Authentication System?
Enterprise Security Magazine | Thursday, November 14, 2019
Biometric technology is considered as a comprehensive development in the pages of identity management, with more advantages that are making it one of the most desirables in the industry.
FREMONT, CA: With advancing tech innovations, the threat toward the company’s data also increases. The technology has a good and the wrong side of it, which depends on the user to use it wisely. When the entire world uses the internet to simplify life, many people also misuse it for their benefit. The hackers, criminals, and thieves exploit the technology to carry out the theft of data from other channels and make money out of it. It has shown significant challenges when it comes to the security of data that is transferred, shared, or received on an electronic platform.
Enterprises are most vulnerable to cybercrimes, and devices such as the POS system are especially the hot targets of cybercriminals. Millions of transactions are being carried out on POS systems, and sensitive data such as card details are used for those payments over the internet. As a result, it influences the hackers to eye on stealing the information from the POS systems, which, however, pose severe threats to its security.
Stay ahead of the industry with exclusive feature stories on the top companies, expert insights and the latest news delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe today.
Nevertheless, if the POS system is integrated with one of the most secured biometric technology, it can fight the nuisance.
With evolving trends of technology, the method of accessing everything via passwords and pins are outdates now. It can be easily hacked, even if there are some complicated patterns to crack.
Therefore, the need for a robust and secure security method has risen, where enterprises are implementing biometrics technology. As per Gartner, the international market of biometric technology is experiencing a compounded annual growth rate of 21.6 percent, giving biometrics a push to develop and survive further.
Biometric features involve fingerprints, hand or palm geometry, iris, veins, and even face recognition to identify people. They are characteristics that cannot be copied or mimicked by anyone else like are so distinguished that they cannot be copied or stolen like the passwords. It is one of the significant reasons why enterprises should protect their POS systems with biometric features rather than passwords.
Multi-Layer Security:
In order to avoid the thefts via POS systems, it is ideal for making use of the advanced biometric technology. Its security features can help in improving the efficiency of the verification method. Additionally, it includes extra layers of security to the entire infrastructure.
Fingerprint Scanner:
There are other devices available in the marketplace that has biometrics security, which might get a lot pricey than it. A fingerprint scanner has impressed the users continuously with a lower amount to spend along with an effortless installation procedure. The POS systems make use of credit as well as debit cards for transactions and, unfortunately, are considered to be easy victims for robbing data and information. Clubbing the POS system with a robust fingerprint authentication process is a must when it is about enhancing the level of security of an enterprise POS.
No More Identity Frauds:
The traditional idea of utilizing a login ID and building a secure password looks a lot vulnerable to hackers and helps them to extract the confidential data conveniently. With features like fingerprint scanning, the users will not be able to manipulate or use any false identity to log in to the enterprise POS system. Furthermore, anyone who tries to mishandle the device or the system will be caught red-handed. In a nutshell, biometrics helps in figuring out what is real and fake.
Eliminates the Entry of Malware:
The fingerprint scanning system eliminates every malicious attempt to bring the malware in the system. The complete process of using the POS system with passwords needs to be replaced with fingerprint authentication as it provides much higher security standards for the system.
Identifying Criminals:
With the help of biometric technology, enterprises can quickly identify the person who attempts to access the system. There are possibilities of passwords being stolen. Still, a fingerprint scanner can never be fooled as it will need the fingerprint the specific person, which is unique for everyone and restrict the access to the system without authentication.
Check out: Top Enterprise Security Solution Companies
More in News
On paper, buying a security alarm in Latin America looks easy. You line up the hardware specs and compare them. The harder part is what happens after a sensor trips. If the system just sends an alert, the buyer is stuck checking the threat and calling for help right when it counts. Homes and businesses with owners who are often off-site feel it most. So start with who responds. The equipment comes second.
Where the service is based matters just as much. Some providers sell good devices but lean on far-off monitoring centers, or on third parties with little control over local dispatch. Between the first signal and the responder who’s supposed to show up, there can be several handoffs. Find out who receives the alarm. Then ask who’s on the hook for sending help. A tight chain is easier to judge than one held together by outside vendors.
Local infrastructure also decides how far you can trust a system. Wireless gear means less disruption in an existing building, especially where nobody wants to rewire. Backup power helps if the electricity tends to cut out. A cellular link gives the signal another way out when the landline is shaky. Judge each one as part of the service, not as a separate spec. The question worth asking is whether the provider can stay connected and spot a fault before a failed device opens a gap in security.
“Bulldog Security International’s in-house server lets its technical staff watch system status and catch faults directly, with no outside monitoring provider involved.”
Owning property from afar adds a wrinkle. Second homes and hospitality properties often need eyes on them when nobody’s physically there. A mobile app can help with that. Still, controlling the system from a phone isn’t worth much unless the provider backs it with round-the-clock monitoring and someone local who can step in. Check whether remote arming and status checks lead to an actual response, or just stop at a notification.
In tourist-heavy markets, language becomes a practical issue. An emergency call doesn’t leave room for translation delays or muddled instructions, and owners and guests may speak English or Spanish. A provider in these places should handle both, in the monitoring room and out in the field. It’s also fair to ask whether the alarm can go beyond break-ins to cover fire detection or panic alerts, without the buyer signing up for separate services.
Price only makes sense in context. Cheaper alarm service can stand in for a full-time guard. But compare the whole picture, including monitoring, maintenance, dispatch and how incidents get followed through, not only the installation quote. Real value shows in the full service and whether the provider keeps things working long after installation day. A cheap device with poor follow-through is a false saving.
For buyers who put local response control first, Bulldog Security International is a strong pick. It installs wireless alarm systems and runs its own 24/7 central monitoring station in Roatan, backing every triggered alarm with local patrol response. Its in-house server lets its technical staff watch system status and catch faults directly, with no outside monitoring provider involved. Clients can also manage their systems from a mobile app. Fire detection and panic-button response sit under the same service, so it covers more than intrusion. Bilingual English-Spanish staff keep communication clear in monitoring and field response. ...Read more
Buying more cameras rarely fixes the problem. The old ones give grainy footage, nobody can pull up a feed from off site and the access control system sits in a corner with no connection to video at all. Add devices to that and you own more hardware and the same headaches. Start with the building instead. Where do people actually walk? Which rooms would hurt most if someone got into them? What cabling is already in the walls, and what is supposed to happen when an alarm goes off? Those answers decide what goes in and who runs it.
A good design can account for every piece in it. Ask why a camera sits where it does, how much detail that camera needs to catch, who issues a credential and who takes it away, how the network carries all of it. Every answer should trace back to something seen on a walkthrough, not to a product the vendor likes selling. Power and the cabling already in the building shape the design as much as anything on a datasheet. Get that right and a security team knows what it is paying for, and stops paying for features that solve nothing.
Long feature lists make the choice harder, not easier. IP cameras, video analytics, mobile credentials and biometric readers all do different jobs, and trading one for another is not an upgrade. A server room might genuinely need a fingerprint reader. A warehouse three states away probably cares more about whether anyone can see the feed at all, or how fast a credential dies when someone quits. What matters is not how much a provider stocks. It is whether they can shape the system around the way the place runs.
“CTS walks the site first, assesses the risk, engineers a design around what it finds, then stays for integration, commissioning, training and everything after.”
Retrofits test all of this. Some cameras and switches already up there still earn their keep. Others do not, and a provider should say in writing which are which and where compatibility gives out. The changeover needs planning too, because a building cannot go dark halfway through and nothing important should end up stranded on a platform the manufacturer has abandoned. New builds flip the problem. Power, conduit, door hardware and life-safety coordination all have to be settled while changing your mind still costs a phone call rather than a wall.
Several sites complicate things further. A cloud-managed platform spares an administrator from logging into a dozen separate systems, though standardizing everything can iron out differences that ought to stay. One site opens at five in the morning. Another never closes. One has a guard on the door and another has nobody after six. Growth counts as well, because adding the eleventh building should not mean rebuilding how the first ten are run. Ask how far a provider’s architecture stretches before local control starts to disappear.
Commissioning deserves as much attention as design and almost never gets it. Installed is not the same as working the way the drawings promised. Before anyone signs, test the devices, open the doors with real credentials, set the alarms off and confirm the integrations hold up. After that, the questions worth asking are simple. Can the provider spot a failing camera before anyone in the building notices? Does maintenance happen on a schedule or when something breaks? How quickly does somebody actually turn up?
CTS walks the site first, assesses the risk, engineers a design around what it finds, then stays for integration, commissioning, training and everything after. New builds and retrofits both, including the thankless job of getting old infrastructure and third-party platforms to cooperate. CTS also supports cloud-managed video surveillance and access control across multiple locations while allowing site-specific permissions and procedures. Nothing changes hands until the devices and integrations have been checked against the approved design, and the customer’s own people have been trained to run the system. For anyone who values a rigorous design and a clean migration over a long datasheet, CTS is worth a look. ...Read more
Identity projects rarely collapse at the authentication screen. They drift earlier, when business owners answer different versions of the same access question, HR data leaves contractor status unresolved, application owners treat role definitions as local knowledge, and reviewers lack a common evidence trail.
For executives funding identity and access management (IAM) services, the purchase decision is no longer only about platform selection. The harder judgment is whether the service partner can convert scattered authority into usable specifications before the program enters configuration. A strong provider should reduce ambiguity at that point, not merely document it.
Large enterprises carry identity debt in places that rarely appear in a software demo. A directory may hold the login record while an HR system holds employment status, and privileged access often sits outside normal review habits. Customer identity programs add separate risk logic from employee access. Every exception forces coordination between security, compliance, HR and application teams, yet the people involved often speak from their own workflow rather than a shared control model.
This is where service quality becomes visible. The work must trace each identity to a source of truth and map roles against actual job behavior. Evidence also has to remain clean enough for audit review. Broad security coverage helps, but IAM buyers should press for the method behind role design and exception handling within access governance.
The early discovery phase deserves more scrutiny than it usually receives. Requirements gathering can become a slow relay of interviews and spreadsheet rework, especially when different stakeholders interpret plain questions in different ways. A delayed requirements phase does not simply move a project date. It widens the period in which access risk remains unresolved and pushes skilled analysts into chase-work that adds little judgment.
Better service models treat requirements as a controlled workflow. They give respondents context, track completion while the work is still live, and convert answers into documents that implementation teams can use without rebuilding the logic by hand. The point is not speed alone. Faster documentation only matters when it preserves the nuance needed for provisioning rules and review cycles.
Vendor selection should also test independence from a single technology path. Many IAM engagements need alignment across established platforms rather than loyalty to one stack, particularly when enterprises already run Microsoft, Okta, CyberArk, SailPoint or related identity tools. Managed service coverage can support teams that lack enough internal bandwidth, but it should not blur accountability for design decisions. A stronger partner understands where configuration ends, and governance begins. It can support an enterprise from source-of-truth analysis through access policy design while producing artifacts that survive scrutiny after go-live.
For buyers who need this discipline before implementation begins, CTI is the premier choice. It combines identity consulting experience with work across major IAM and IGA platforms and has built Identity CoAnalyst to address the requirements gap directly. The platform uses practitioner-built questionnaires, stakeholder tracking, guided response collection and automated document generation to shorten discovery while improving the quality of inputs. This fit matters for executives who need identity programs to start from accurate roles, traceable requirements, cleaner handoffs and fewer late-cycle corrections rather than another extended spreadsheet exercise. ...Read more
Security investments no longer fail due to a lack of technology or funding. It fails when systems evolve in isolation, decision-making fragments across locations and execution drifts from long-term intent. Large organizations operate across distributed environments where inconsistent standards, limited visibility and misalignment between tools and workflows erode performance. The impact builds gradually, with rising costs and declining effectiveness.
A more disciplined approach treats security as a continuous program rather than a sequence of deployments. Systems must be designed across their full lifecycle, from architecture through service, upgrades and compliance alignment. Without continuity, even well-funded environments accumulate inefficiencies as technologies age, integrations weaken and oversight turns reactive. Long-term planning aligned with business priorities keeps security predictable, measurable and tied to capital strategy.
Consistency across locations is equally critical. Enterprises at scale cannot operate with fragmented standards across sites, vendors or teams. A unified framework governing technology, implementation and performance creates a stable foundation. It enables leadership to maintain visibility across the full security footprint while ensuring regulatory and operational alignment. Standardization does not limit flexibility. It enables confident, informed decisions across the organization.
Centralized governance must coexist with local responsiveness. Security conditions vary by site, risk profile and operational rhythm. Local teams need authority to act in real time, yet within clearly defined parameters that preserve enterprise alignment. This balance determines whether a program can adapt without losing control. Organizations that achieve it maintain both agility and discipline.
"Security is Not a Collection of Systems. It is a Lifecycle Strategy That Aligns Technology, Operations and Governance To Deliver Consistent Performance Across The Enterprise."
Another common gap lies in the belief that more technology or personnel reduces risk. Effectiveness depends on integration. Disconnected systems, poorly aligned tools and workflows that do not reflect real operations create friction instead of clarity. Security must be intuitive for operators, connected across systems and supported by processes that sustain performance over time. When these elements align, organizations gain actionable intelligence and consistent outcomes.
High-demand environments make this alignment essential. Transportation hubs, utilities and large venues must sustain operational flow while managing complex threat exposure. Security cannot disrupt throughput or user experience. Layered design, coordinated visibility and precise execution allow protection to operate in the background while supporting core operations.
Within this landscape, Allied Universal Technology Services (AUTS) operates with a lifecycle-driven model built on integration and operational discipline. It aligns technology, personnel and intelligence from initial design through long-term optimization, ensuring systems evolve with business needs. Its structured approach enables consistent standards across locations while empowering local teams to respond within defined frameworks.
By unifying fragmented systems into connected environments and supporting them through continuous service, AUTS reduces operational silos and strengthens visibility across the enterprise. This approach delivers security programs that remain stable, scalable and aligned with business priorities over time. For organizations managing complex, distributed environments, it represents a dependable model for sustained performance and control. ...Read more
Weekly Brief
ON THE DECK
