Today, we’re thrilled to sit down with Kwame Zaire, a renowned expert in manufacturing with a deep focus on electronics, equipment, and production management. As a thought leader in predictive maintenance, quality, and safety, Kwame brings a wealth of insight into the pressing cybersecurity challenges facing the manufacturing sector. With cyber threats on the rise and supply chains growing ever more complex, his expertise offers a critical perspective on how the industry can protect itself. In this conversation, we’ll explore the unique vulnerabilities in manufacturing, the dual risks of supply chain exposure, the impact of serious vulnerabilities, and the evolving tactics of cyber attackers, along with practical strategies to bolster security.
Can you walk us through why manufacturing has become such a hotspot for cybercriminals in recent years?
Absolutely. Manufacturing is a prime target because it’s a critical backbone of the economy, and any disruption can have massive downstream effects. The industry often deals with valuable intellectual property, like proprietary designs, which are gold for attackers. Plus, the rapid digitization of operations—think IoT devices on factory floors—has outpaced security measures in many cases. Recent data, like the 2023 Statista report, shows manufacturing facing the highest number of cyber attacks compared to other sectors. A lot of this comes down to the sheer complexity of supply chains and the fact that many manufacturers haven’t historically prioritized cybersecurity the way finance or IT sectors have, leaving them more exposed.
How does the dual role of manufacturers—as both recipients of supply chain risks and vendors of potentially compromised products—amplify their vulnerability?
It’s a double-edged sword. As recipients, manufacturers rely on hundreds or even tens of thousands of suppliers for components, and each one is a potential entry point for an attack. A single weak link, like a supplier with lax security, can introduce malware or compromised parts into the system. As vendors, they’re also at risk of shipping products that have been tampered with during production—sometimes without even knowing it. For instance, a microchip could be altered to include a backdoor before it even reaches the assembly line. This dual exposure means threats can come from upstream or manifest downstream, impacting customers and eroding trust.
With 18% of vulnerabilities in manufacturing rated as ‘serious,’ what does this statistic tell us about the state of the industry’s cybersecurity?
That 18% figure is alarming because it’s significantly higher than other sectors like financial services, which average around 11%. It signals that when vulnerabilities are found in manufacturing, they’re often critical—think flaws that could halt production or expose sensitive data. A ‘serious’ vulnerability might be something like an unsecured industrial control system that, if exploited, could manipulate machinery or cause safety hazards. Manufacturing ranks high because of legacy systems that weren’t built for today’s connected environments and the slow adoption of robust security practices compared to sectors with more regulatory oversight on cyber issues.
We often hear about different attackers, from nation-state actors to organized crime groups. How do their strategies differ when targeting manufacturing?
They’re night and day in many ways. Nation-state actors play a long game. They might infiltrate a supply chain years in advance, embedding backdoors or persistent access points to exploit during geopolitical tensions. Their goal is often strategic—disrupting critical infrastructure or stealing tech for military advantage. Organized crime groups, on the other hand, are more opportunistic. They’re after quick financial gain, using ransomware or data theft, and their methods can be unpredictable because they adapt fast to whatever vulnerability they spot. They might target a small supplier one day and a major plant the next, just based on where they see an easy payoff.
Supply chain complexity, especially with thousands of suppliers, seems to be a major pain point. Can you break down how this creates security risks?
The more suppliers you have, the bigger your attack surface. In industries like aerospace, where a single product might involve tens of thousands of suppliers, each one—no matter how small—represents a potential weak spot. A tiny component maker might not have the resources for top-tier security, making them an easy target for attackers to slip in malware or tampered parts. For example, a rivet supplier might seem insignificant, but if their systems are breached, an attacker could use that access to pivot into the larger manufacturer’s network or embed a flaw that compromises the final product’s integrity. It’s a cascading risk that’s hard to fully map, let alone secure.
Hardware subversion, like tampered microchips from gray markets, was highlighted as a threat. What drives manufacturers to take these risks, and how common is this issue?
Cost pressures and supply shortages often push manufacturers to gray markets—unofficial sources for components. When you can’t get a critical part through regular channels, or the price is prohibitive, these markets can seem like a lifeline. But it’s a gamble. Tampered or counterfeit microchips can come with backdoors or defects built in, and even major players have been burned by this. It’s not an everyday occurrence, but it’s common enough that it’s a known risk, especially in high-stakes fields like aerospace or defense. The challenge is that these issues can go undetected until it’s too late, as thorough testing of every component isn’t always feasible.
What steps can manufacturers take to strengthen their defenses against these diverse cyber threats?
It starts with rigorous supplier vetting. Mandating annual security testing and detailed questionnaires for vendors can weed out weak links early. Transparency is key—test results should flow up the supply chain so everyone knows where they stand. Manufacturers should also run their own simulations, like ‘Red Team’ exercises, to mimic real-world attacks on suppliers. Beyond that, physical testing of components—tearing down batches to check for tampering—and securing firmware updates with cryptographic signatures can catch or prevent issues. Employee education is just as critical. Many workers don’t realize the risks of connecting legacy devices to the internet, so training them to spot and avoid pitfalls can make a big difference.
Looking ahead, what is your forecast for the future of cybersecurity in manufacturing?
I think we’re at a turning point. The threats will only grow as manufacturing becomes more connected and attackers get savvier with tools like AI to exploit vulnerabilities faster. But I’m also optimistic because awareness is rising. More companies are investing in proactive measures like penetration testing and supply chain audits. Over the next decade, I expect tighter regulations to force better security standards, much like we’ve seen in other critical industries. The challenge will be balancing those investments with tight margins, but those who adapt early—building security into their processes from the ground up—will be the ones who thrive while others scramble to catch up.
