How should teams think about secure-by-design choices when connected devices are exposed to the internet?

What secure-by-design means for internet-exposed devices

Secure-by-design is the discipline of making the safer choice the default choice before the device ships. For internet-exposed devices, that means assuming hostile reachability, reducing exposed interfaces, and avoiding convenience features that silently expand the attack surface. It is not just about adding protections later, it is about preventing unnecessary pathways from existing at all.

That principle matters because connected devices often end up deployed behind consumer routers, small-business gateways, or mixed home networks where operators do not understand every remote-access feature they have enabled. If a design choice creates unexpected public exposure, the design has already failed the secure-by-design test, even if the device has strong credentials or a polished management app.

Secure-by-design also includes lifecycle thinking. A product that is safe only when every consumer or installer applies the right setting is fragile by design. The stronger pattern is to ship with the least permissive network posture, document any remote access clearly, and make exposure opt-in rather than automatic. CISA’s Secure by Design principles reinforce that the safest default is the one that removes unnecessary trust and minimizes attackable surface.

Which device choices most often create avoidable exposure?

The most common failure mode is convenience disguised as functionality. Remote administration, universal discovery, UPnP-style router behaviour, cloud relays, vendor support tunnels, and default public listeners can all create paths to the device that were never intended by the operator. A secure-by-design review asks whether each path is essential, whether it can be limited to local use, and whether it can be removed without breaking the core product.

For consumer and home deployments, the best design is usually the one that keeps the device unreachable from the public internet unless the user has explicitly chosen that exposure. If remote management is required, it should be bounded by strong authentication, narrow scope, and clear visibility. If a feature only exists to make setup easier, but it also opens inbound reachability, teams should treat that as a security trade-off that needs a strong justification. The EU Cyber Resilience Act reflects this direction by pushing products with digital elements toward secure-by-design defaults and lifecycle security.

Device exposure is also shaped by network design, not only by firmware. If a router feature forwards ports automatically, advertises services broadly, or makes local devices reachable from the wider internet without a clear operator decision, the product ecosystem is failing the secure-by-design standard. The right question is not whether an attacker can use the exposure, but whether the exposure should have existed in the first place. The Device and IoT Identity Guide is useful here because device trust, attestation, and lifecycle controls all depend on keeping device reachability deliberate rather than accidental.

How teams should evaluate the design before release

A practical secure-by-design review should start with the attack path, not the feature list. Teams should ask how an internet attacker would discover the device, what service would answer first, and which configuration choice would make that access possible. If the answer depends on defaults that a normal user is unlikely to understand, the design needs revision, not just documentation.

Use a simple decision rule: if removing a feature does not materially damage the product’s core purpose, remove it or keep it local-only; if the feature is genuinely required, constrain it by default and make the operator choose exposure consciously. That approach is especially important for home-network products, where router settings can multiply the blast radius of a single device weakness. Testing should therefore cover not only the device itself, but also the surrounding network paths that can unexpectedly expose it.

Continuous testing during development matters because secure-by-design is easy to claim and hard to maintain. Every feature addition should be checked for whether it creates a new listener, a new forwarding rule, a new cloud dependency, or a new administrative path. That is where design intent usually drifts: a harmless-looking usability improvement becomes a remote access channel.

Practitioner Guidance

What to prioritise: Start with public reachability, because network exposure usually determines whether a flaw is merely local or immediately exploitable from anywhere. If a feature opens inbound access, treat that as a design decision that needs explicit risk acceptance, not as a default convenience.

What to verify: Confirm what is reachable from the internet by default, what depends on router behaviour, and what can be disabled without harming core function. Verify that any remote-management path is both intentional and clearly documented for the operator.

Common mistake: Teams often secure the device software but ignore the home or edge network path that makes the device visible in the first place. A product can have strong authentication and still be poorly designed if it ships with avoidable exposure.

Practitioner takeaway: The safest secure-by-design choice is usually the one that removes an unnecessary remote path before it becomes part of the product’s normal operating model.

Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group

• How should teams think about ServiceNow in an NHI programme?
• How should security teams protect air-gapped systems when USB drives are regularly moved between secure and internet-connected devices?
• How should teams secure non-human identities across cloud and SaaS?
• How should teams reduce the risk from exposed NHI secrets?