Overcoming Five Cybersecurity Risks of Cobots

Summary

Industrial organizations that do not adopt robotics and automation will soon be seen as outdated by clients and peers. Collaborative robots (cobots) are one of the focal points of this Industry 4.0 and 5.0 shift, acclimating human workers with robotic colleagues. They have many applications, yet they lose some of their luster because of several cybersecurity concerns. Becoming well-known for effective cobot installation requires deploying security methods to stay safe in cyberspace.

1. Unauthorized access and control in insecure networks

Cobots have numerous security issues circling permissions. Too many people might have access or entry into poorly defended cobot management software. Many of these systems also exist in insecure networks, providing more opportunities for threat actors to manipulate a cobot easily.
 
It could lead to physical damage, information extrication and more, harming employees and the company. Attack types could include denial-of-service (DoS) or man-in-the-middle (MITM) threats. Corporations solve this by instituting strict access minimization. This includes but is not limited to:

• Least-privilege controls
• Multifactor authentication (MFA)
• Zero-trust architecture
• Deep packet inspection
• Next-generation firewalls

 In addition to architectural changes and software assistance, IT teams and analysts should also monitor access requests for cobot operations.

2. Data leakage and privacy violations

Cobots collect information with every movement and camera scan, storing tons of proprietary and employee data. Any time information moves or is stored behind insecure systems, hackers could intercept or leak it. Criminals could command cobots to endanger staff or cause excess downtime, preventing critical operations from taking place.
 
Overcome privacy compromises with encryption, data minimization and immutable storage. These are only several components comprising a wider protection strategy. First, information within the cobot must have walls around it with strong encryption. It should only capture the data it needs instead of as much as possible. Then, it should back up and delete data regularly to unchangeable storage units — whether hardware- or cloud-based. This makes leaks more challenging and sensitive data safer.
 
Another option is anomaly detection. Setting this up requires connected software to do asset inventory and logging to determine regular behaviors. Then, it reviews this every day and notifies operators if the activity is asynchronous to regular operations.

3. Physical tampering and manipulation

Cybersecurity risks are not completely digital. Hackers still take advantage of robotic systems through physical means. A cybersecurity risk could turn into a safety concern, especially in sectors like health care where cobots work in lifesaving applications like elderly care.
 
Two utility facilities can use are intrusion detection systems, which are powerful software solutions, and tamper-evident seals, which are strong physical barriers. Operators should also regularly inspect and report their findings on cobots to ensure there are no loose parts or unexpected superficial changes.

4. Supply chain vulnerabilities

Most facilities work with third-party suppliers for their cobots and peripherals. This reliance means most businesses expect machinery to be secure before it hits their workforce. In some cases, cobots have malicious code or malware inside them before organizations open the box. At any point during manufacturing and transportation, hackers could have intercepted the cobot with harmful materials.
 
They could have exploited anything from out-of-date software to naive safety precautions during distribution. To stay protected against this window of opportunity for threat actors, communicate clearly with suppliers. Relay security expectations and how contract integrity relies on these criteria. Concerns should be passed to the client to take action, whether through a vulnerability assessment or discontinuation of poor hardware.

5. Lack of awareness and training on incident response planning

Cobots will be the next generation’s co-workers, yet lack of training is a major restraint against the industry’s growth. Employees worldwide are still acclimating to robots conceptually and barely have any training on incident response. Sites reduce human error and oversight when identifying activity with comprehensive training on threat types to watch for and how to address them when suspected.
 
Education must contextualize these dangers without fear so humans develop a positive working relationship with them. Training should underscore threats to productivity and revenue by increasing downtime and emergency response, but make it more tangible by discussing data security and personal safety. Numerous organizations and programs offer training in these focus areas to help employees develop more productive and aware relationships with cobots:

• General cybersecurity awareness from agencies like NIST
• Manufacturer-specific training for proprietary cobots
• Incident response from organizations like SANS Institute
• Webinars and conferences like Black Hat or robot-specific conferences

Cobot compromises

Cobots can recognize their full potential only with secure foundations. Teams must collaborate with cobot manufacturers and analysts to defend against the most novel cybersecurity threats from the beginning of the design phases through implementation. Robots' reputations depend on these security measures. Otherwise, facilities could regress in innovation and productivity.