IoT security is the practice of protecting connected devices, their credentials, and the networks they join. It covers access control, patching, segmentation, and monitoring so a device cannot be used as an easy entry point into wider systems.
Expanded Definition
IoT security extends beyond traditional endpoint protection because connected devices often have constrained processing, embedded firmware, and long operational lifespans. In NHI environments, the practical focus is not just the device itself, but the identities and secrets it uses to authenticate, broker data, and receive updates. That includes device certificates, API keys, service tokens, and cloud-to-device trust relationships. Guidance varies across vendors on whether IoT security is treated as a device-management discipline or an identity discipline, but in operational terms it must cover both. NIST’s IoT device cybersecurity guidance is useful here because it frames minimum device capabilities such as identification, patchability, and logging, all of which affect identity risk.
NHIMG treats IoT security as a control plane problem as much as a hardware problem, especially when devices authenticate to brokers, cloud services, or OT gateways. That is why device onboarding, secret issuance, certificate renewal, and revocation need to be governed as part of the full lifecycle. The most common misapplication is assuming a device is secure once it is physically hardened, which occurs when teams ignore embedded credentials, outdated firmware, or unmanaged third-party connectivity.
Examples and Use Cases
Implementing IoT security rigorously often introduces operational overhead, requiring organisations to weigh faster deployment against tighter device governance, certificate hygiene, and maintenance windows.
- A smart building sensor uses a unique certificate per device, with renewal tied to an inventory record and revocation process instead of shared credentials.
- An industrial gateway is segmented from corporate systems, limiting the blast radius if the device is compromised and its token is abused.
- A remote telemetry device sends data through a broker that enforces mutual authentication and rotation of secrets, reducing the value of stolen credentials.
- A vulnerable camera fleet is patched through a controlled firmware pipeline, with change approval and validation before rollout to production sites.
- A third-party monitoring vendor’s connected devices are reviewed for access scope and offboarding readiness, a risk pattern highlighted in NHIMG research on the State of Non-Human Identity Security.
These patterns align with the secure-by-design direction in the EU Cyber Resilience Act, which reinforces the expectation that connected products be maintainable, identifiable, and resilient over time.
Why It Matters in NHI Security
IoT devices often become the weakest NHI-adjacent foothold because they are deployed at scale, rarely inspected, and commonly left with persistent credentials. NHIMG research shows that 96% of organisations store secrets outside of secrets managers in vulnerable locations, while 71% of NHIs are not rotated within recommended time frames, conditions that are especially dangerous in device-heavy environments. Once a device is compromised, attackers can use its trust relationships to move laterally, impersonate legitimate telemetry, or reach protected cloud endpoints. That is why IoT security must be governed as part of broader NHI lifecycle control, not handled as an isolated asset-class concern. The same research also shows that 80% of identity breaches involved compromised non-human identities, underscoring how quickly one exposed device can become a wider identity incident.
Practitioners also need to understand that IoT risk is amplified by third-party dependencies, especially when vendors manage firmware, remote support, or embedded software update channels. Organizations typically encounter the full cost of IoT security only after a device is used as an entry point or persistence mechanism, at which point identity revocation, segmentation, and recovery become operationally unavoidable to address.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 address the attack surface, NIST CSF 2.0 set the technical controls, and EU Cyber Resilience Act define the regulatory obligations.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 | NHI-02 | Covers improper secret management, a core IoT device risk when credentials are embedded or exposed. |
| NIST CSF 2.0 | PR.AC-1 | IoT devices need unique identification and controlled access as part of identity governance. |
| EU Cyber Resilience Act | The CRA drives secure-by-design expectations for connected products and their updateability. |
Assign each device a unique identity and enforce authenticated access for every service interaction.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
Deepen Your Knowledge
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on June 23, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org
