Flat networks make it easier for attackers to move laterally once they reach one system, which is especially dangerous in pharma because research data, production platforms, and connected devices often share the same environment. When external users, collaborative systems, and IoT or OT assets are interdependent, weak boundaries can turn a single compromise into broader data exposure or operational disruption.
Why flat networks become more dangerous when pharma environments mix collaborators and connected systems
A flat design removes the friction that should separate a compromised laptop, a shared research system, a vendor connection, and an IoT or OT device. In pharmaceutical environments, that matters because the same trust mistake can expose regulated data, disrupt production, or let an attacker pivot from an ordinary access point into systems that were never meant to share a blast radius.
When external collaborators, lab tooling, and operational devices sit in the same reachable space, the network stops acting as a control and starts acting as a transport layer for lateral movement. The security problem is not just initial intrusion, it is the ease with which access to one asset becomes access to many.
This is why flatness is more than an architecture preference issue. In pharma, the consequence can be the loss of separation between intellectual property, quality-sensitive production workflows, and connected endpoints that may have weak patching, embedded credentials, or limited monitoring.
How lateral movement, trust expansion, and device exposure interact
The main failure mode is boundary collapse. If a collaborator account, a contractor-managed system, or an IoT device can reach broadly into the same environment, an attacker only needs one weak entry point to begin probing for additional systems, credentials, file shares, APIs, or management interfaces.
Flat networks also amplify hidden trust. A device that is acceptable for telemetry, a workstation that is acceptable for shared research access, and a server that is acceptable for production support may all be treated as equally reachable, even though they should not have the same level of exposure or the same route to sensitive workflows. That makes segmentation as much about controlling trust assumptions as about blocking traffic.
For pharma specifically, the mix of external and operational assets raises the stakes because research, quality, manufacturing, and building or plant systems often have different owners, different uptime requirements, and different security maturity. A flat design ignores those differences and turns them into shared risk.
What changes in a pharma environment with IoT and external access
Connected devices are often the hardest part of the environment to secure well. They may be vendor-managed, long-lived, weakly monitored, or difficult to patch, which makes them attractive as a first foothold or a bridge into more important systems. Once inside a flat network, those devices can become stepping stones instead of isolated endpoints.
External collaborators create a second pressure point. They legitimately need access, but their access is usually narrower, less consistent, and more dependent on partner controls. If that access lands in the same network zone as sensitive production or research assets, the environment inherits the weakest hygiene of the connected parties rather than preserving separation by function.
That is why the issue is not simply “more users” or “more devices.” It is the combination of heterogeneous trust, uneven administration, and a shared reachability model that makes containment difficult after the first compromise.
Risk and Threat Considerations
Flat networks increase the chance that a compromise will spread beyond the original entry point, especially when attacker movement is aided by shared access paths, broad internal reachability, and weak separation between office, lab, partner, and operational segments.
Failure mechanism: An attacker gains a foothold through a collaborator endpoint, exposed service, or connected device, then uses unrestricted internal reachability to enumerate systems, harvest credentials, and pivot toward higher-value research or production assets. The same mechanism can also let a vulnerable IoT or OT device become the bridge into more sensitive business systems.
Impact: The likely outcomes are broader data exposure, disrupted operations, increased recovery scope, and a much larger incident because containment has to happen across many systems at once rather than at a narrow boundary.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
MITRE ATT&CK and OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 address the attack and risk surface, while NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, NIST Zero Trust (SP 800-207) and CIS Controls v8 set the governance and control requirements practitioners need to meet.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | SC-7 — Boundary Protection | Flat networks create broad internal reachability that SC-7 is meant to constrain. |
| AC-4 — Information Flow Enforcement | This question is about limiting how data and access flow across shared network zones. | |
| Recommendation — Use SC-7 to segment collaborator, lab, and OT zones so a single compromise cannot pivot widely. Apply AC-4 to restrict cross-zone communications to approved paths and services only. | ||
| NIST Zero Trust (SP 800-207) | Zero Trust Architecture | The question is fundamentally about replacing implicit internal trust with explicit verification and segmentation. |
| Recommendation — Adopt Zero Trust principles to remove implicit internal trust and validate access per request. | ||
| CIS Controls v8 | CIS-12 — Network Infrastructure Management | Network structure and segmentation are central to reducing lateral movement in mixed pharma environments. |
| Recommendation — Use CIS-12 to design segmented network paths for collaborators, labs, and IoT systems. | ||
| MITRE ATT&CK | T1021 — Remote Services | Flat networks make remote movement and post-compromise pivoting easier for attackers. |
| T1087 — Account Discovery | Broad reachability helps attackers enumerate users and shared access paths after entry. | |
| T1210 — Exploitation of Remote Services | IoT, lab, and partner systems in a flat network can be abused as pivot points. | |
| Recommendation — Map exposed internal services to T1021 and reduce unnecessary remote reachability. Watch for T1087-style discovery activity following any initial foothold. Hunt for T1210 paths where internal services or devices can be abused for lateral movement. | ||
| OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 | NHI-03 — Vulnerable Third-Party NHI | External collaborators and vendor-managed systems can become weak trust anchors in a flat network. |
| NHI-05 — Overprivileged NHI | Shared systems and devices often accumulate more internal access than they need. | |
| NHI-06 — Insecure Cloud Deployment Configurations | Pharma environments often mix cloud-connected collaborators with internal systems and misconfigurations can widen exposure. | |
| Recommendation — Treat third-party-managed identities and systems as untrusted until their access paths are isolated. Audit non-human access for excess reach and remove permissions that cross trust boundaries. Check deployments for overly open routes and tighten network exposure between trust zones. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
What to prioritise: Treat segmentation by trust zone, not by convenience. The first boundary to design is usually between external collaborator access, general corporate access, and any environment that supports research, production, or device management.
What to verify: Check whether any IoT, OT, lab, or partner system can reach more than it genuinely needs for its job. If a device or collaborator session can talk laterally to broad internal ranges, the network is already too flat to contain a compromise.
Decision rule: If an asset is hard to patch, hard to monitor, or supplied by a third party, assume it needs tighter segmentation than a managed internal workstation, not the same reachability. The weaker the control over the asset, the more important the boundary around it becomes.
Practitioner takeaway: In pharma, the most important question is not whether a system is connected, but whether a compromise of that system can be contained before it reaches research, production, or sensitive collaborator data.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
Deepen Your Knowledge
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on September 26, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org
