dedicated to perimeter safety and security
February 2026 Issue
Fast, reliable, and affordable technology solutions are enabling security leaders to successfully plan (and sell up) perimeter safety and security investments. While pressure is growing to improve situational awareness and response to events, the full stack from sensors to communications to alarm management is advancing at AI speed to support security’s mission.
Featured This Month:
- Exclusive Interview with Fredrik Nilsson: Raising the bar for perimeter video intelligence for Axis’s customers.
- How Schools & Colleges are Targeting Identity as the New Perimeter: Improving people flow, security, and response time.
- The Integrated Perimeter Stack: Proving who’s there, securing critical infrastructure, managing false alarms features.
- Trends: The Digital Perimeter and the OT Blind Spot: How OT devices moved to the center of the business perimeter—and why disruptions start there.
- smartPerimeter.ai Awards: 2026 nominations are open, recognizing innovation across perimeter safety and security.
- smartPerimeter.ai Education Track at ISC West: Exclusive details on SIA’s Perimeter Track Sessions.
- News From the Edge: The latest updates in false-alarm reduction, industrial networking, and OSDP-certified access control
Explore the full February issue below.
Smart Questions for Smart People…
Exclusive Interview with Fredrik Nilsson, VP – Americas at Axis Communications
Raising the Bar for Perimeter Video Intelligence
I enjoyed catching up with Fredrik to discuss the connection between video technology and perimeter safety and security. A long-time supporter of innovation, he recognized early on that the expansion of the internet and the shift toward cloud-based solutions would allow technology to influence nearly every aspect of our lives—creating new opportunities across both security and business applications. His perspective on what comes next for perimeter protection is well worth exploring.
-Mark McCourt, Publisher
Balancing Security and Flow at High Education Perimeters
Universities face a security challenge unlike any other built environment. They must protect thousands—sometimes tens of thousands—of students, faculty, staff, and visitors every day, while preserving the openness that defines academic life.
Unlike corporate campuses or government facilities, higher education institutions are intentionally designed to be open and welcoming. They encourage collaboration, community engagement, and the free exchange of ideas. Libraries, student centers, dining halls, and quads are meant to invite people in, not keep them out.
This openness also creates vulnerabilities. Rising concerns around campus violence, theft, vandalism, and unauthorized access to sensitive areas have forced institutions to confront an uncomfortable truth: the traditional open-access model is becoming difficult to sustain without added risk.
The challenge is not whether to secure the campus, but how to do so without undermining campus culture, accessibility, aesthetics, or operational efficiency. The most successful institutions are answering this challenge with a layered, identity-driven approach to perimeter and entry security—one that balances protection with flow.
The Dual Imperative: Openness vs. Security
Higher education operates at the crossroads of two seemingly opposing needs:
Openness
Campuses are designed to foster learning, creativity, and community participation. Overly visible or aggressive security can create a “fortress” atmosphere that conflicts with institutional values and student experience.
Security
Universities are responsible for safeguarding people, intellectual property, research assets, and sensitive data. Certain spaces—by nature of what they contain or who they serve—require stricter control.
The goal is not complete restriction but, instead, access based on applications. Effective campus security determines zones where open access is useful and areas where controlled access is a must. Then strategic facilities apply the right level of protection to each.
Critical Security Priorities Unique to Higher Education
Not all campus spaces carry equal risk. A nuanced security strategy recognizes the varying threat profiles across different environments:
Residence Halls
Student housing is among the most sensitive areas on campus. These spaces require robust access control, visitor management, and protection against tailgating and unauthorized entry. Failures here have direct consequences for student safety and institutional liability.
Research Labs and Academic Facilities
Many campuses are home to cutting-edge research, proprietary discoveries, and hazardous materials. These spaces can’t operate with open access. They require stronger controls such as multi-factor authentication and detailed access logs to ensure that only approved individuals can enter and that sensitive work, people, and materials are properly protected.
Event Venues and Student Centers
Student centers, arenas, and performance spaces are some of the busiest places on campus, and their risk levels change constantly depending on what’s happening inside. On game days or during large public events, thousands of visitors may pass through. After hours, those same spaces often need to shift to access for students or staff-only. The challenge becomes how to manage heavy foot traffic easily while maintaining control when public access should be limited.
Administrative and Financial Offices
These offices are the core of the university, housing student records, financial information, and institutional data. Because of what’s at stake, access needs to be tightly managed, monitored, and documented. Strong controls here aren’t just about security but also about privacy, compliance, and maintaining trust with students and staff.
Why Entry and Exit Must Be Treated Differently
One of the most overlooked aspects of campus perimeter planning is the distinction between ingress and egress. Each presents fundamentally different security risks.
Ingress (Entry)
Entry points are where institutions must prevent unauthorized individuals from entering sensitive spaces. Key concerns include tailgating, piggybacking, forced entry, and social engineering. Effective entry design may incorporate credential verification, one-person-per-authorization validation, vandal-resistant construction, and clear sightlines for security staff.
Egress (Exit)
Exit points must balance life safety, evacuation requirements, and theft prevention. Poorly designed exits can become loss points for equipment, personal property, or retail assets. Thoughtful egress design considers visibility, camera coverage, and separation between public circulation and sensitive interior zones—without ever obstructing emergency exit paths.
Treating entry and exit as distinct risk environments allows universities to apply the right control at the right moment, rather than over-securing everything.
A Layered Security Strategy for the Modern Campus
The most effective campus security strategies don’t rely on a single line of defense. Instead, they’re built in layers, each one adding a different level of protection based on risk. This allows universities to secure their most sensitive areas without making the entire campus feel locked down or unwelcoming.
- DETER
The first layer is all about discouraging unwanted behavior before it ever becomes a problem. Good lighting, visible security presence, clearly defined access points, and subtle physical boundaries all signal that a space is monitored and intentional. Often, these simple, visible measures are enough to stop casual unauthorized access before it starts.
- DETECT
The next layer focuses on spotting issues as they happen. This is where real-time monitoring comes into play by identifying things like tailgating, unusual access patterns, or misuse of credentials. With the help of intelligent sensors and access data, security teams can respond faster and make better decisions based on actual activity, not just assumptions.
- PREVENT
At the highest-risk points, such as sensitive labs or data centers, physical prevention becomes essential. Here, the objective is to physically block unauthorized access through verified identity and controlled passage, reducing reliance on constant human supervision.
This layered framework enables campuses to remain open where they should be open and secure where they must be secure.
Identity as the New Perimeter
“Identity as the perimeter” as a concept is reshaping how universities think about access. Instead of relying strictly on keys, cards, or unlocked doors, modern security strategies increasingly tie access privileges directly to verified individuals.
This shift addresses several persistent vulnerabilities:
- Tailgating and credential sharing are reduced when one-to-one authentication is enforced.
- Social engineering becomes harder when access is tied to verified identity rather than appearance or assumption.
- Operational intelligence improves when access data reveals how spaces are actually used—when, by whom, and at what volume.
Identity-based access systems also enable dynamic privileges, allowing institutions to adjust who can access what based on status, time, and risk level, without rekeying doors or disrupting daily operations.
Designing Security That Preserves Campus Culture
Security in higher education must be as much about design and communication as it is about technology. Students and faculty should feel protected, not restricted. That means security solutions must integrate seamlessly into architectural intent, pedestrian flow, and the campus aesthetic.
Equally important is transparency. When institutions clearly communicate why security measures are in place and how they protect residents, research, and personal safety, community acceptance rises. Education, signage, and consistent policies play a critical role in building trust.
When security is thoughtfully designed and clearly explained, it becomes part of the campus experience rather than an external imposition on it.
By: Amanda Powell, Boon Edam
The Balanced Path Forward
Higher education is unlikely to ever become a fully closed or gated environment, and it shouldn’t. Openness is foundational to academic life. At the same time, today’s risk landscape demands more intentional protection of people, property, and knowledge.
The institutions finding success are those that reject one-size-fits-all security models in favor of layered, identity-driven strategies that differentiate risk across campus environments. By tailoring protection to residence halls, labs, event spaces, and public areas—and by addressing entry and exit as distinct challenges—universities can achieve what once seemed contradictory: a campus that is both secure and welcoming.
With this balanced approach, security becomes an enabler of education rather than a barrier to it by supporting learning, connection, and innovation.
Next Gen Panic Buttons Enhance School Safety
In K–12 schools and universities, security personnel and first responders need to react more quickly, communicate more effectively, and cover increasingly dynamic spaces faster. Students and faculty are constantly on the move throughout the day amongst multiple buildings and outdoor areas. Maintaining safety and security in these spaces demands more robust and mobile solutions beyond conventional panic buttons and alarms.
Modern mobile duress technology addresses many of the longstanding challenges of conventional panic notification systems. Wireless duress cards and location beacons paired with cloud-based software allow staff members and responders to quickly and easily identify the zone, floor, or room where help is needed.
Publisher Mark McCourt spoke with Eric Banghart, Vice President at Inovonics, about how new mobile duress, wireless sensors, and system integrations can better support school safety initiatives while complementing broader campus and perimeter security strategies. He shared proven techniques and processes to improve school safety and security.
How Physical Security is Essential for DHS’s IT Sector Security Strategy
Despite the emphasis on Zero Trust, cloud security, and AI-supported defenses, the reality is that U.S. IT infrastructure remains physical. It exists in buildings, yards, carrier hotels, and data centers that are only as secure as their physical boundaries. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), largely through the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), has built a robust national framework for managing cyber risk. Unfortunately, many organizations falsely assume this framework has solved both their physical and virtual security problems.
The DHS designates the Information Technology Sector as foundational to every other sector of the economy. Cloud platforms, enterprise software, networking hardware, and data services underpin energy, water, healthcare, financial services, transportation, and public safety. CISA is responsible for coordinating risk management, information sharing, and resilience planning across a sector dominated by private ownership. What is often missing from these conversations is that every IT service—cloud regions, federal data centers, network operations centers, managed service provider facilities—has physical perimeters. If they are weak, cyber controls are operating on borrowed time.
IT critical infrastructure includes hyperscale and enterprise data centers, federal data centers, cloud zones, internet exchange points, software build and update environments, service provider facilities, and disaster recovery sites. These locations are attractive targets because access means leverage. Physical access to racks enables hardware tampering. Access to fiber pathways enables disruption. Access to staff areas can lead to insider recruitment, and access to backup systems enables ransomware persistence. Despite this, physical security is often treated as a facilities expense, rather than a national security issue.
The Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program standardizes how federal civilian agencies inventory assets, manage identities, monitor vulnerabilities, and visualize cyber risk. This is necessary, but only works if the infrastructure remains trustworthy. If network equipment can be physically accessed, tampered with, or privileged access abused, this monitoring degrades into a false sense of assurance.
Federal agencies have made clear that cyber defense is inseparable from physical security. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has publicly stated its intent to deploy CDM capabilities across its data centers—controls that retain credibility only when access to physical spaces is enforced. Similarly, DHS’s EINSTEIN program monitors traffic entering and leaving federal civilian networks, but that visibility breaks down when network closets, fiber runs, or demarcation points are left exposed. If the physical boundary cannot be trusted, neither can the cyber monitoring built on top of it.
Physical and perimeter security are no longer optional add-ons. They are essential to protecting IT infrastructure. Designs must be deliberate, with basics including anti-climb fencing, controlled vehicle entry, clear buffer zones, and secured cable routes. Further necessities include: surveillance for vulnerable quiet areas, intrusion systems for security centers, and lighting to improve visibility and detection. Access control should be role-based, logged, time-limited, and integrated with identity systems.
DHS and CISA, however, do not directly own this problem. Most IT critical infrastructure is privately owned, and DHS lacks authority to mandate physical security standards across the sector. Instead, it sets expectations, publishes frameworks, coordinates intelligence, and relies on market forces—customers, insurers, regulators, and liability—to enforce discipline. That places responsibility squarely on operators and when a facility is physically breached, no cyber advisory can undo the damage.
Cyber and facilities teams talk about vastly different vulnerabilities, but attackers do not respect the distinctions. For IT critical infrastructure, the perimeter is the first firewall, the gate is an authentication event, and the fence is a trust boundary. Until organizations treat physical infrastructure security as inseparable from IT critical infrastructure protection, DHS cyber programs will continue to inherit risk from unsecured perimeters. Data centers are not just buildings. They are national assets. And national assets require real perimeters.
Call Out Box
When the perimeter fails, every other control becomes harder, more expensive, and less reliable.
For executives responsible for company finances, perimeter security is often misclassified as a cost center. In reality, it is one of the most valuable investments in IT infrastructure.
From a CISO perspective, strong perimeter controls reduce the chance that cyber defenses are tested past their limits. Physical access gives attackers powerful advantages—such as hardware tampering, credential theft, insider recruitment, and persistence. Investing in perimeter security lowers the likelihood that costly advanced cyber tooling, incident response retainers, and regulatory disclosures will be needed.
From a COO perspective, perimeter security protects operational continuity. Data centers, cloud facilities, network hubs, and recovery sites are production assets. Physical intrusions—whether theft, sabotage, or safety incidents—create service outages, SLA penalties, customer loss, insurance claims, and reputational damage. Well-designed perimeters reduce downtime and shorten recovery when incidents occur.
The ROI is clear. Perimeter improvements are minor costs when compared to the risks of excluding them. Unlike cyber investments, investing in perimeter security is a visual safety that satisfies customers, insurers, and board members alike.
For IT infrastructure operators, perimeter security is not about aesthetics or compliance. It’s about protecting the things that make cyber resilience possible.
Infrastructure & Integrations: Beyond False Perimeter Alarms
7 Trends Improving Alarm Management Outcomes
What modern security teams need to enable faster, more reliable responses.
For decades, security models were straightforward: receive a signal, follow a call list, dispatch authorities, and document the event. But that workflow is breaking down fast.
Police departments are strained, false alarms carry real policy and reputational consequences, and alarms are no longer enough to trigger urgency. Perimeters are where these challenges are most obvious: outdoor systems generate noisy alarms, and the consequences of getting it wrong range from expensive guard dispatches, to no response at all.
Dismissing even one real alarm as false can be detrimental to business.
Here, we identify seven key trends in alarm monitoring:
Perimeter monitoring is now delivering fast, accurate information, helping people to quickly confirm alarms and make the best decisions. These consistent processes lead to reliable and, most importantly, safer results.
FEATURE
Everybody Has a Body: Why Physiological Biometrics Are Redefining Identity at the Perimeter
Everybody has a body—and almost any part of that body can be used as a physiological biometric.
Even today, the idea still sounds a bit like Minority Report (yes, the 2002 Tom Cruise movie—and still the most referenced film whenever security professionals start talking about biometrics). But what once felt like science fiction is quietly becoming one of the most profound shifts in how you prove who you are—with absolute trust, or zero trust—at the perimeter.
Physiological biometrics are identity-verification methods based on unique, relatively stable physical characteristics of the human body. Fingerprints, iris patterns, facial structure, and vein patterns are all inherently unique to an individual. They’re always present, extremely difficult to replicate at scale, and far less vulnerable to theft than traditional PINs, passwords, or plastic credentials.
When used responsibly, physiological biometrics offer something rare in security: stronger protection and less friction. You don’t carry them. You don’t remember them.
You become the key.
Biometrics Are Already Here—And Have Been for a Long Time
Physiological biometrics are not emerging or theoretical. They are already deployed—out in the wild—across governments, enterprises, retail, transportation, and critical infrastructure.
Consider the four most widely used modalities today:
Fingerprints
Fingerprint biometrics are the most widely used biometric identifier on the planet—and they’re far from new. Their earliest documented use dates back thousands of years to Ancient Babylon and Silk Road trade routes, where fingerprints pressed into clay tablets authorized contracts and confirmed receipt of goods.
Today, fingerprints are deeply embedded in criminal justice systems, immigration programs, border control, and national identity initiatives worldwide. But the true spark for mass adoption came in 2013, when Apple introduced Touch ID on the iPhone 5s. That single moment normalized biometric identity, turning it into something people now use dozens of times a day without thinking about it.
Iris Recognition
Iris biometrics are commonly deployed where accuracy and assurance are paramount. The intricate patterns of the iris are among the most unique and stable biometric traits available, making false acceptance rates extraordinarily low.
As a result, iris recognition is widely used in high-security data centers and mission-critical infrastructure environments. Because iris systems are fast and contactless, they also support high throughput without sacrificing security. CLEAR’s biometric kiosks—now operating in more than 75 U.S. airports—have even reframed iris recognition as a “speed pass” for travel.
Facial Biometrics
Facial authentication has become one of the most visible forms of biometric identity. Millions of people unlock their phones with face recognition, and airports increasingly rely on facial systems for TSA screening and border processing.
Beyond travel, facial biometrics are now used for online identity verification and age assurance, helping organizations meet regulatory requirements while reducing friction. Their strength lies in familiarity—this is how humans naturally recognize one another—even though the underlying systems operate purely on mathematical templates of ones and zeros.
Palm and Vein Biometrics
Palm and vein recognition offer a compelling combination of security and spoof resistance. Because vein patterns exist beneath the skin, they are extremely difficult to capture or replicate without cooperation. Several banks in Japan have been using palm vein authentication for ATM security since 2004.
These modalities are increasingly used in retail point-of-sale environments for frictionless payments and in physical access control systems such as turnstiles and secure entry points. Their contactless nature and resilience against fraud make them especially attractive in enterprise and commercial settings.
Identity Becomes Something You Are
Taken together, these modalities illustrate a fundamental shift. Physiological biometrics are not about a single body part or technology—they redefine how identity itself is established and verified.
Identity becomes something you are, not something you carry or remember. The human body becomes a secure interface between people and systems.
That shift comes with responsibility. Because biometric data is deeply personal, trust is essential. Transparency around how data is captured, converted, stored, and protected is critical for both user acceptance and regulatory compliance.
One important misconception worth clearing up: most biometric systems do not store images of your face, fingerprint, or eye. They convert physical traits into encrypted mathematical templates—streams of ones and zeros—that cannot be reverse-engineered into images of your body. Understanding this distinction helps separate fact from fear.
Why Biometrics Align With Human Behavior
People forget passwords. They lose cards. They share credentials.
But they don’t forget their bodies. (Imagine if you could?)
By transforming physical traits into secure, non-reversible digital templates, biometric systems align security with how humans actually behave. When designed correctly, they offer a path toward identity that is stronger, simpler, and more intuitive—bridging physical and digital security with speed and confidence.
Everybody has a body. And when that body is responsibly transformed into encrypted math—not an image of you—it becomes one of the most powerful credentials we have.
What Comes Next: Multi-Modal Biometrics
It gets even more interesting when multiple biometric modalities are combined—fingerprint plus iris, face plus voice—often alongside a PIN or password. This approach, known as multi-modal biometrics, can significantly increase assurance while reducing friction when applied in the right environment for the right use case.
This evolution raises important questions about trust, usability, and system design—questions that security leaders are actively debating today.
By – Doug OGorden
Join the conversation as I moderate a panel with three security experts on Face, Voice, PIN: The New Credential for Physical Access at ISC West on Tuesday, March 24, at 10:00 a.m.
TRENDS
The Digital Perimeter: Why “Security Camera” Is an Oxymoron for CISOs
Why Protecting the Business Means Protecting OT
For years, organizations have taken comfort in a simple idea: the network is protected. Endpoint security is deployed. SOC dashboards glow green. Alerts are triaged. The assumption is that if the corporate network is secure, the business is secure.
That assumption is increasingly wrong.
Operational technology (OT) devices—such as security cameras—are now critical to business operations, widely exposed to cyberattack, and capable of causing business disruption at scale. Yet they are often excluded from core security strategy.
The modern enterprise does not run on email servers and laptops. It runs on machines. Those machines live on the digital perimeter.
They are OT devices, quietly performing the work that keeps commerce, transportation, and daily operations moving.
And when those devices are compromised, the business doesn’t degrade.
It stops.
The Perimeter Moved While Most Security Programs Didn’t
The traditional security perimeter was once easy to define: fences, doors, guards, and firewalls. Today, the real perimeter exists where digital systems control physical processes.
Consider the environments that underpin modern operations. Letter sorters process thousands of packages per hour. Conveyor belts and scanners route luggage across airports. Identity systems validate access. Sensors, cameras, controllers, and readers coordinate people and assets across expansive facilities.
These are not supporting systems.
They are the business.
Yet many organizations still treat OT as a side concern—something owned by facilities, engineering, or vendors. Cybersecurity teams focus on data loss. Operations teams focus on uptime. The growing gap between the two is where risk quietly accumulates.
Why Protecting the Business Means Protecting OT
For years, organizations have taken comfort in a simple idea: the network is protected. Endpoint security is deployed. SOC dashboards glow green. Alerts are triaged. The assumption is that if the corporate network is secure, the business is secure.
That assumption is increasingly wrong.
Operational technology (OT) devices—such as security cameras—are now critical to business operations, widely exposed to cyberattack, and capable of causing business disruption at scale. Yet they are often excluded from core security strategy.
The modern enterprise does not run on email servers and laptops. It runs on machines. Those machines live on the digital perimeter.
They are OT devices, quietly performing the work that keeps commerce, transportation, and daily operations moving.
And when those devices are compromised, the business doesn’t degrade.
It stops.
The Perimeter Moved While Most Security Programs Didn’t
The traditional security perimeter was once easy to define: fences, doors, guards, and firewalls. Today, the real perimeter exists where digital systems control physical processes.
Consider the environments that underpin modern operations. Letter sorters process thousands of packages per hour. Conveyor belts and scanners route luggage across airports. Identity systems validate access. Sensors, cameras, controllers, and readers coordinate people and assets across expansive facilities.
These are not supporting systems.
They are the business.
Yet many organizations still treat OT as a side concern—something owned by facilities, engineering, or vendors. Cybersecurity teams focus on data loss. Operations teams focus on uptime. The growing gap between the two is where risk quietly accumulates.
OT Devices Are Not Simple—They’re Exposed
For years, OT devices were passed over in favor of traditional IT assets like servers and endpoints. As organizations hardened their networks, attackers followed the path of least resistance—and shifted their focus to OT.
Today, OT devices are:
- IP-connected
- Remotely managed
- Running embedded operating systems
- Integrated with enterprise applications
- Installed once and rarely revisited, often well past end of life
From an attacker’s perspective, they are ideal targets—not because they store sensitive data, but because they are always on, lightly monitored, and essential to operations.
Botnets don’t need sophistication if they can rely on neglect. Malware doesn’t need to steal data if it can interrupt a process. OT devices offer both opportunity and leverage.
Not a Physical or Cyber Problem—but a Business Problem
Cybersecurity discussions tend to center on breaches, data exfiltration, and regulatory exposure. OT risk doesn’t fit neatly into that framework.
If malware:
- Disables a letter sorter
- Freezes a baggage scanner
- Knocks access control offline
- Disrupts cameras or perimeter sensors
The outcome isn’t a headline about stolen records. It’s delayed shipments, missed flights, safety concerns, and cascading operational failure. Business resilience is lost.
And unlike IT systems, OT environments are often fragile. They can’t be aggressively scanned. They can’t be rapidly patched. They can’t always be rebooted without physical consequences. Recovery is slower, riskier, and far more expensive.
The Rise of OT-Aware Security and Asset Intelligence
A new class of vendors is emerging with a focus on OT visibility, hygiene, and resilience—rather than forcing OT environments into tools designed for traditional IT systems.
One example is Viakoo, whose customers include Fortune 500 enterprises, financial institutions, and government organizations. Its approach is designed to:
- Discover and continuously manage OT devices
- Diagnose device health and availability
- Identify misconfigurations, lifecycle risks, and vulnerabilities
- Enforce cyber hygiene at scale, without disrupting operations
This matters because OT security isn’t about chasing zero-day exploits. It’s about baseline discipline:
- Knowing what devices exist—physically
- Knowing whether they are operational
- Knowing whether they are misconfigured, patched, and password-protected
- Knowing when they have reached end of life
This work isn’t glamorous. But it’s what keeps businesses running.
There are, of course, other players emerging across the OT security ecosystem. What’s clear is that the OT blind spot is not theoretical. Attackers increasingly shut down operations through ransomware by causing operational disruption, not data theft. OT systems are often the easiest—and most impactful—entry point.
The digital perimeter is now inseparable from the physical one. OT devices are no longer background infrastructure; they are load-bearing systems.
Protecting the network is necessary.
Protecting the business means protecting OT.
If the machines stop, the business stops.
And that is the risk most organizations are still not prepared to explain—let alone manage.
EVENTS
Join Our ISC Education Tracks!
Featured SIA Education Tech Talk: Thursday, March 26 | 8:00-9:00AM
Risk is no longer isolated to security teams—it’s a business-wide concern. As a result, modern security platforms are being used to generate operational intelligence, not just protect assets.
This SIA Education Tech Talk brings together industry leaders to examine how security and data platforms are enabling more proactive risk management, highlighting where traditional approaches fall short and what’s working in the field today.
Join these experts:
-
- Larry Bowe, CEO, PureTech Systems
- Bud Broomhead, CEO, Viakoo
- Mohammed Murad, CRO, Iris ID
- Mark Landry, Director, AMAROK
- Mark McCourt, Moderator
More smartPerimeter.ai Education at ISC West
SIA Education sessions sponsored by smartPerimeter.ai examine how perimeter strategy, technology, and risk assessment are evolving to meet modern threats.
- Beyond the Built Environment: Scaling Physical Security Perimeters Without Compromise
- Facility Security and Safety Starts at the Perimeter
- National Industry Leaders Examine the Impact of Emerging Threats on a Generational Shift in Risk Assessment
- Built to Act: Designing for Autonomous Security Response
- The Business Is the Asset: Curating Operational Data to Stay Ahead of Risk
The 2026 smartPerimeter.ai Award Nominations Are Open!
Every entry receives FREE publicity!
The smartPerimeter.ai Awards Program recognizes the People, Companies, Solutions, and Projects making a difference in the market and our lives.
Nomination Guidelines and Procedure:
There is no cost to nominate a company, product, service, integration, or person for the 2026 smartPerimeter.ai Awards
Nominations should be related to perimeter safety and security people, companies, products, services, and integrations/case studies.
The same company may submit multiple nominations and may enter nominations in more than one category.
Timeline:
April: Nominations deadline is April 30, 2026
August: smartPerimeter.ai Award Winners
September: Announced in the September Issue, 2026
November: smartPerimeter.ai Awards Reception at ISC East, November 2026
December: smartPerimeter.ai Awards Newsletter Codifies Winners and Nominees
Every entry receives great FREE publicity, including:
- All Nominees and their entries are profiled in the Special smartPerimeter.ai Awards Newsletter and on our Website.
- Noted Award Winner in the December smartPerimeter.ai Newsletter.
- Use of the 2026 smartPerimeter.ai Award Nominee logo.
- Your listing in the Award Nominee section on the smartPerimeter.ai website.
AWARD Categories
Click on the 2026 Awards Tab in the navigation menu above to submit your nominees.
NEWS – FEBRUARY 2026
Antaira has announced its new ultra-flat Ethernet switch, the FNP-0500G-T. Designed for modern control cabinets and space-constrained environments, it offers robust, high-speed connectivity with an installation depth of only 1.24 inches. Learn more.
Learn how integrator Genesis Security helped slash false alarms by 62% using Milestone’s VMS and Actuate’s AI cloud-based analytics. Read more.
ZKTeco USA announced that its newest access control products, developed with sister company Armatura, are now OSDP Verified—raising the bar for secure, standards-based access control. Learn more.
PRODUCT / COMPANY SHOWCASE
Magnasphere revolutionized door protection with the first major advancement since the 1930s reed switch. Its patented, award-winning technology sets new standards for high-security performance and offers a more reliable, cost-effective alternative to traditional reed switches. Magnasphere Motion, powered by Inxpect radar, eliminates false alarms, while its motion-sensing platform, panic switch, and anti-climb fence system deliver advanced, connected security solutions for modern protection needs.
PureActiv® is an Autonomous Perimeter Protection Software featuring patented Geospatial AI-Boosted Video Analytics. It enhances security by using advanced machine learning to reduce false alarms from sensors and cameras while integrating seamlessly with existing systems. PureActiv® provides real-time intruder tracking, automated detection, and geospatial visualization for superior situational awareness. Its extended detection range cuts infrastructure costs by up to 30% and supports flexible deployment across edge, server, and cloud environments.
Asylon Robotics: Humans + Robots + AI = Security Redefined
Asylon Robotics is redefining perimeter security by combining humans, robotics, and AI. Through autonomous ground robots (DroneDog™), FAA-compliant aerial systems (Guardian™), and a 24/7 Robotic Security Operations Center, Asylon delivers scalable, cost-effective protection. Their turnkey service enhances coverage, fills the security labor gap, and provides real-time monitoring across critical infrastructure. With 260,000+ missions completed, industry leaders trust Asylon to modernize and strengthen perimeter defense. Visit www.AsylonRobotics.com to learn more.
