Large transportation environments such as airports, seaports and ferry terminals are often cited as flagship examples of integrated security.
Large transportation environments such as airports, seaports and ferry terminals are often cited as flagship examples of integrated security. In reality, many of these deployments struggle once they move beyond pilot phases and attempt to operate at full scale.
According to Verghese Thirumala, CEO of Maxitulin, the most underestimated challenges in transportation security are not about devices or coverage, but about identity, data flow and operational reality.
Speaking to asmag, Thirumala, who is also the Deputy Director of IACSP (International Association of Counter Terrorism and Security Professionals) in South East Asia, said that while most large transportation projects are technically feasible, integration often falters because too many systems are expected to work together without a common foundation.
Too many systems, too little data coherence
One of the most common issues Thirumala sees in large-scale transportation deployments is fragmentation at the data layer.
“In airports and seaports, you don’t have just one system,” he said. “You have access control, HR management, database management, contract management. All of them sit on different databases, and there is no seamless flow of data between them.”
While integration between these systems is technically possible, he said it is frequently treated as a secondary concern. “That integration is very critical,” Thirumala noted. “Otherwise, everything works in silos.”
For system integrators, this creates long-term operational risk. When identity data is duplicated across platforms, even small inconsistencies can cascade into access failures, delays, or security gaps.
Multiple identity sources complicate access control
Transportation hubs must manage access for a wide range of user groups, far beyond permanent employees. These can include airline staff, port workers, vessel crew, contractors, vendors and temporary personnel, each onboarded through different processes.
“You have staff, you have crew, you have contract workers, temporary workers,” Thirumala said. “All of them come in through different onboarding platforms. That database alignment is very critical.”
Without a unified identity framework, access control systems struggle to enforce consistent rules. The same individual may appear under different names, IDs or credentials across systems, making it difficult to manage permissions accurately.
“Inconsistent naming is a big issue,” Thirumala added. “Onboarding is done in different places, so the ID names are slightly different. That’s where the idea of a single identity across systems breaks down.”
In many deployments, this is resolved manually. “Manual reconciliation becomes the norm,” he said, undermining the automation that these systems were supposed to deliver.
Lifecycle management is harder than initial deployment
Another underestimated challenge is managing the lifecycle of access rights once a system is live. Transportation environments are highly dynamic, with frequent changes in roles, schedules and permissions.
“You have time-based passes, RFID cards, mobile credentials, biometrics, temporary access,” Thirumala said. “But that doesn’t mean it always maps cleanly to one identity, because you’re using different platforms and applications.”
As access rights change, systems must update in near real time. In environments such as airports and seaports, delays can have serious consequences.
“Imagine an airport or a seaport,” he said. “A terminated staff member or a security incident, every minute is critical. Can there be a lockdown? Can there be immediate action? These are very critical questions.”
At scale, even small delays or mismatches between systems can create exposure, particularly when thousands of staff are spread across multiple facilities and zones.
Real-time requirements expose integration weaknesses
Transportation security systems are often designed and tested under controlled conditions. During pilot projects, integrations appear stable because the number of users, access points and workflows is limited.
“Pilot projects are successful because they are miniature,” Thirumala said. “When you go for large-scale implementation, face by face, there are a lot of unknown and unseen failure points.”
These weaknesses become apparent when systems are placed under real operational stress. Real-time demands, such as emergency lockdowns, access revocation or incident response, expose delays and inconsistencies in how systems communicate.
“The hardest part of integration is not connecting systems,” Thirumala said. “It’s agreeing on who a person is, what they are allowed to do, where they are allowed to go, and when those permissions must change.”
This challenge cuts across access control, automated gates, identity databases and operational systems, all of which must respond in sync.
Compliance and audit gaps emerge at scale
Many transportation security projects are designed with a strong focus on physical coverage. Cameras, doors and gates are deployed to meet defined security objectives.
However, compliance and audit requirements often receive less attention during early phases.
“Normally, design is focused on devices and coverage,” Thirumala said. “What do you want to cover, where do you want to cover, how do you want to cover.”
As systems scale, gaps emerge. Audit trails may be incomplete, identity records inconsistent, or access histories difficult to reconcile across platforms. This becomes problematic in regulated environments where authorities require clear accountability.
“When you move from pilot to full scale, that’s when compliance and audit gaps show up,” he added.
When small configuration issues become major outages
One of the risks of tightly integrated transportation systems is that minor errors can have outsized impact. Thirumala pointed to a real-world example from aviation to illustrate this.
“In 2017, there was a minor network configuration change,” he said. “It looked small, but later it caused a major outage.”
According to Thirumala, the issue eventually led to widespread disruption, affecting flight information displays, baggage handling, automated gates and airside movement. “Everything went haywire,” he said.
The incident highlights how deeply interconnected modern transportation systems have become. When access control, identity systems and operational platforms are tightly linked, resilience and change management become just as important as functionality.
Lessons for system integrators
For integrators working on transportation projects, Thirumala’s observations point to several key lessons.
First, identity management must be treated as a foundational layer, not an add-on. Without a consistent understanding of who a person is across systems, access control and security workflows will always struggle at scale.
Second, lifecycle management deserves as much attention as initial deployment. Time-based access, credential revocation and real-time updates must be tested under realistic conditions, not just in pilots.
Third, integration design should account for failure. Configuration changes, network disruptions and data mismatches are inevitable in large environments. Systems must be designed to degrade safely and recover quickly.
Finally, integrators should resist the temptation to equate successful pilots with readiness for full deployment. “Scale changes everything,” Thirumala said, and transportation environments amplify those challenges.
As airports, seaports and ferry terminals continue to modernize, the pressure to integrate access control with wider security and operational systems will only increase. For integrators, success will depend less on individual technologies and more on how well identities, data and processes are aligned across the entire ecosystem.