How should teams prevent lateral access when a device is allowed to route traffic for other connected devices?

Preventing Reachability Beyond the User-Approved Path

When a device is permitted to route traffic for other connected devices, the central security question is not whether routing exists, but how far that trust is allowed to extend. The safe design principle is to make routing explicit and bounded: the forwarding device may carry traffic only for destinations the user has approved, and it should not become a bridge to unrelated peers by default. That distinction matters because convenience features often widen the reachable surface silently.

In practical terms, teams need to think about routing as a policy decision rather than a transport feature. If the device can see or forward traffic for other endpoints on the same private network, then the routing role can create unexpected lateral access, especially where discovery, shared subnet assumptions, or permissive forwarding rules are involved. The OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 is useful here because routing logic often depends on machine-to-machine trust that must be explicitly constrained instead of assumed.

In practice, many security teams encounter unintended lateral reachability only after a device is repurposed from a convenience function into a trusted forwarding path.

How Routing Controls Stop Cross-Device Exposure

Effective prevention starts with scope. A routed session should be tied to a specific user-approved destination, service, or network segment, not to the general presence of a nearby connected device. That usually means the routing device must enforce packet-level checks that compare each forwarded flow against the policy the user actually granted. If the flow would expose unrelated peers, the correct action is to drop it rather than try to infer intent from topology or prior trust.

That policy has several operational consequences. First, device adjacency is not the same as authorisation. A phone, hub, gateway, or intermediary controller may sit on the same local network as other devices, but proximity alone should never justify transit to those peers. Second, the routing device should not silently expand permissions over time. If a new peer joins the network, the forwarding policy should still be evaluated against the original approval state. Third, logging and observability matter because teams need to know when routing is being used as a transit path rather than as a single-purpose connection.

A useful implementation pattern is:

• bind routing to an explicit allow decision, not to device discovery;
• limit forwarding to the approved destination or service class;
• drop packets that would create access to unrelated devices;
• review whether the routing function needs to exist at all for the deployment;
• treat any automatic propagation of trust as a defect, not a usability feature.

For device makers and platform teams, supply-chain and control integrity also matter. If the forwarding logic is weak, every downstream device inherits the error. The EU Cyber Resilience Act is relevant as a governance lens because secure-by-design expectations apply to connected products that can affect the security of other devices. Where routing policy cannot be enforced consistently, the feature should be narrowed or removed. This guidance breaks down when the product architecture cannot distinguish approved transit from incidental network reachability.

When Routing Becomes a Trust Boundary Problem

Tighter routing controls often increase policy complexity, requiring organisations to balance user convenience against the risk of creating an implicit bridge between otherwise separate devices. The usual edge case is a shared environment where the user expects one approved connection, but the routed device can technically see more than one peer. In that situation, the safest answer is not broader forwarding, but narrower authority.

One common variation is a temporary routing use case, such as onboarding or support. Those cases can justify short-lived transit rights, but only if the scope and expiry are explicit. Another edge case is when a device is both a router and a managed endpoint. That dual role raises the chance of policy confusion because the device may be trusted for one purpose and over-trusted for another. There is also a consensus point worth stating clearly: teams generally agree that “same network” is not a sufficient control justification, even though approaches differ on how strictly packets should be filtered versus how much topology should be isolated.

The practical test is whether a forwarded flow can reach a peer the user never intended to expose. If the answer is yes, the routing design is too permissive. The NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 Security and Privacy Controls provides a useful control-oriented lens for access enforcement, boundary protection, and configuration discipline. Where teams cannot verify forwarding boundaries with confidence, they should assume the control is not strong enough for production use.

Risk and Threat Considerations

The material risk is lateral reachability through an over-trusted forwarding path. A device that routes for others can become an unintended bridge into a private network, exposing adjacent systems, internal services, or previously unreachable peers. The threat is not limited to deliberate abuse. Misconfiguration, permissive forwarding rules, and weak policy binding can all create the same exposure class.

Failure mechanism: The routing device forwards traffic based on broad network presence or stale trust state instead of validating each destination against explicit user approval. Once forwarding is too permissive, the device can relay packets to unrelated peers, and any compromise or misuse of the routing function can be used to expand access laterally.

Impact: Unintended devices become reachable, private traffic paths are exposed, and segmentation assumptions fail. That can enable data exposure, unauthorized service access, and a wider incident blast radius across connected devices.

Practitioner Guidance

What to verify: Confirm that forwarding is evaluated per destination, not just per session or per network. The control should fail closed when the packet would reach an unrelated peer, and teams should be able to demonstrate that behaviour during testing.

Common mistake: Treating routing as a harmless convenience layer. Once a device can forward traffic for others, it has become part of the trust boundary, so any broad exception effectively turns local connectivity into implicit lateral access.

What good looks like: The routing role is narrowly scoped, user approval is explicit, and packet handling is predictable enough that an unrelated device on the same network cannot be reached unless it was intentionally authorised.

Practitioner takeaway: If the design cannot prove that forwarded traffic stays inside the user-approved path, the routing feature is creating a trust extension rather than providing controlled connectivity.

Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group

• How should security teams defend internet-facing Kubernetes workloads against exploit traffic built for other device types?
• What do teams get wrong about remote access to customer devices in IoT and connected hardware?
• How should security teams handle embedded SSH access in connected devices that rely on remote engineering support?
• How should security teams reduce stale access in AI-connected data environments?