The Era of Converged Risk
For decades, companies have treated physical and cybersecurity as separate worlds: distinct teams, budgets, and reporting lines. However, that fragmented model no longer fits reality.
The “Great Security Merger,” or Integrated Security, represents a paradigm shift: the fusion of physical security, cybersecurity, and Operational Technology (OT) into one governance framework. The goal is a 360-degree view of risk and mitigation: protecting people, assets, data, and networks as one.
Threat actors exploit the seams between siloed functions. When a hacker can overheat a data center by hijacking HVAC systems, or a disgruntled contractor can walk into a server room, the old walls become liabilities.
The push for integration starts in the boardroom. Financial exposure drives urgency. Physical incidents once dismissed as routine losses now inflict measurable damage.
Physical incidents once dismissed as routine losses now inflict measurable damage.
The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners estimates that a typical organization loses 5% of its annual revenue each year to occupational fraud, which includes tangible threats like asset misappropriation and theft by insiders. The FBI reports that Business Email Compromise scams, a form of cyber-enabled fraud, have resulted in over $50 billion in exposed global losses in recent years.
Risk, it turns out, is domain-agnostic to the bottom line.
The Drivers of Integration
Multiple forces are compelling organizations to converge their security functions. This shift is not merely an option for efficiency but a structural necessity imposed by technological evolution, regulatory pressure, and a volatile global landscape.
Cross-Domain Threats and Geopolitical Uncertainty
Threats today operate seamlessly across physical and digital fronts. Attackers combine malware, social engineering, and physical infiltration.
Global instability amplifies these risks. Nearly half of security professionals report that geopolitical tensions are creating increased cyber risks that specifically target Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS). A siloed structure prevents an organization from seeing how a physical threat must inform its network defense, and vice versa, creating dangerous blind spots.
Digital Transformation and the Exploded Attack Surface
Every connected system, from door locks to industrial controls, has become a computer on the network. As companies digitize, their physical environments become attack vectors.
A critical issue is that physical security devices such as cameras, networked access controls, and surveillance infrastructure are often deployed without rigorous cybersecurity hygiene. They frequently operate with outdated protocols, unpatched firmware, and default passwords, creating optimal initial access points for sophisticated attackers deep inside trusted networks.
Often, Facilities and IT share responsibility and, as a result, no one truly “owns” these endpoints. Only integration can lead to unified governance and ensure consistent security standards across all assets.
Only integration can lead to unified governance and ensure consistent security standards across all assets.
Board Accountability and Regulatory Pressure
Regulators are accelerating convergence.
In the U.S., new SEC rules from 2023 require public companies to formally disclose their cybersecurity risk management and governance in 10-K filings and to report material incidents within days. This has successfully codified cyber risk into the highest tiers of enterprise oversight.
PwC found that, in initial filings after these rules, over 80% of companies detailed how cyber risk was integrated into their enterprise-wide risk management (ERM).
The regulatory spotlight on cyber is a wake-up call for physical security leadership. As boards focus on disclosure and compliance metrics centered on cyber, physical threats might being deprioritized.
To counter this, physical security leaders must proactively align with business strategy and use quantifiable data to articulate how physical vulnerabilities create material business risks. By integrating their reporting into the same governance structures that track cyber performance, they can ensure physical risk retains board visibility and strategic relevance. This aligns with a regulatory trend pushing organizations to break down internal barriers so that security reports up as one cohesive function with a unified voice.
Artificial Intelligence and Automation
AI is reshaping both attack and defense. AI-powered systems improve surveillance and anomaly detection, while adversaries weaponize AI for deception. Crowdstrike found that voice-phishing (“vishing”) attacks, for instance, rose 442% in the second half of 2024, with criminals using deepfake audio to socially engineer employees.
As physical systems rely increasingly on AI, they inherit software vulnerabilities, further blurring the cyber-physical line and demanding convergence.
Strategic Advantages: The Case for Synergy
When executed effectively, security integration yields measurable benefits that improve performance and reduce risk.
Unified Threat Picture and Accelerated Response
The most significant advantage of integration is holistic visibility. A consolidated Global Security Operations Center (GSOC) merges cyber and physical feeds into one threat picture. Analysts can correlate network intrusions with physical access events in real time.
This unified view is critical when response times are shrinking. The average eCrime breakout time (how long before another device is affected) dropped by almost a quarter to 48 minutes in 2024. With so little time, internal handoffs are untenable. A merged response team acts immediately, locking down facilities and isolating networks without bureaucratic lag.
Integration also streamlines operations: one GSOC can replace redundant parallel teams, cutting overhead and complexity while improving incident coordination.
Security as a Business Enabler
Convergence can also support security’s transition from a cost center to a business enabler. When physical and cyber teams speak with one voice, their influence expands in the boardroom.
Unified reporting gives leadership a clearer understanding of enterprise-wide risk, empowering security to guide strategic decisions and drive resilience. By integrating insights, security evolves into a strategic partner aligned with growth, reputation, and continuity objectives.
When physical and cyber teams speak with one voice, their influence expands in the boardroom.
The Friction Points: Challenges and Cultural Resistance
Despite its appeal, integration collides with entrenched habits, identity, and structure.
Organizational Silos and Cultural Resistance
Physical and IT security grew up as different disciplines: law enforcement veterans versus technologists. Bringing them together risks friction and culture shock.
This is not a minor issue. According to a 2025 survey, 75% of CSOs cite organizational silos and fragmented data as the primary impediment to maximizing their impact.
Failures often trace back to human factors: fear of lost influence, confusion over responsibilities, or lack of hybrid talent able to bridge both worlds.
Executive Perception Gap
At the executive level, priorities remain skewed. Cyber risk dominates board agendas. A 2023 survey found that 9 in 10 CSOs believe their leaders prioritize cyber over physical risks.
That imbalance distorts investment, pouring funds into digital defenses while leaving physical and OT systems under-protected. Integration cannot thrive without correcting this perception gap.
Structural Tensions and Specialization Risk
Merging security functions also raises governance dilemmas. Should the CISO sit under the CSO or the reverse? Turf battles over ownership, budget, and visibility can stall progress.
Another danger is oversimplification. Forced convergence risks creating generalists at the expense of expertise. Effective models preserve specialization while connecting intelligence and response across domains. Integration should unify command and coordination, not erase depth.
Integration should unify command and coordination, not erase depth.
Open Debate: Is It Worth It?
The logic for convergence is clear: threats are unified, risks interconnected, and regulatory scrutiny unavoidable. The real question is how to make it work.
Key questions remain:
- Governance and Investment Parity: How will the unified leader ensure that the executive focus on cyber does not lead to under-investment in vulnerable physical and OT infrastructure?
- Model Selection: Should convergence be fully centralized with consolidated budgets, or should a federated model prioritize unified intelligence and response protocols while preserving domain-specific reporting lines?
- Measuring Value: Beyond cost savings, what metrics will demonstrate that integration is enhancing resilience and accelerating response, rather than merely reducing administrative overhead?
Integration is not a silver bullet: it’s an organizational transformation that demands leadership alignment, culture change, and clear metrics.
The threats have merged, and the financial exposure is unified. The key is overcoming organizational challenges such as entrenched team cultures and executive perception gaps. Even the debate itself is valuable, as it challenges organizations to finally think about security in a truly holistic fashion.
The convergence of cyber and physical security is inevitable and is reshaping how businesses create value. Those who embrace it will not only mitigate risk but accelerate growth through smarter, more resilient operations.