WHITE PAPER

Building a Hidden Network

Why Network Cloaking is the Future of OT Network Protection
Download PDF

TL:DR

The cybersecurity landscape for Operational Technology (OT) networks is evolving, driven by an increasingly complex threat environment powered by AI and nation-state hackers. Asset owners also face the inherent vulnerabilities of industrial systems. Traditional, perimeter-focused security models, heavily reliant on hardware-based firewalls, are proving increasingly inadequate against sophisticated, AI-powered attacks and the pervasive challenge of unpatchable legacy infrastructure.

A fundamental shift towards network cloaking and Zero Trust principles is not merely an option, but an imperative for robust OT protection. By rendering critical assets invisible, enforcing granular access controls, and providing a virtual air gap and microsegmentation, these advanced software-defined approaches offer a proactive, resilient, and operationally viable defense.

A comprehensive analysis demonstrates that solutions like BlastWave’s BlastShield decisively overcome the limitations of conventional hardware firewalls, delivering superior security, simplified management, and a significantly lower total cost of ownership. This analysis leaves no doubt that cloaking and Zero Trust represent the necessary path forward for safeguarding critical industrial operations.

The Evolving Threat Landscape in Operational Technology (OT)

Operational Technology (OT) networks, which control and monitor physical processes, face a unique and rapidly escalating array of cyber threats. Understanding the distinct characteristics of these environments and the growing sophistication of adversarial tactics is crucial for developing effective defense strategies.

Unique Characteristics and Vulnerabilities of OT Networks

OT networks are fundamentally distinct from traditional Information Technology (IT) networks, as they manage and control physical processes through specialized protocols and devices. These include Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs), Human-Machine Interfaces (HMIs), and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems, all engineered for real-time operations and high availability. Even slight delays or disruptions in these systems can have catastrophic consequences.

A paramount difference lies in the core priorities: OT environments prioritize safety and continuous availability above all else, often superseding data confidentiality and security. Operational downtime in these critical infrastructures can result in substantial financial losses, widespread service disruptions, physical injuries, or even loss of life.

This fundamental divergence in priorities creates a significant challenge when attempting to apply IT-centric security solutions to OT. Traditional IT security practices, such as frequent patching and vulnerability scanning, are designed for IT’s priority stack. When directly applied to OT, they often cause unacceptable disruption or fail to integrate with the unique constraints of industrial control systems. This inherent conflict leads to a reluctance to implement security measures that might jeopardize uptime, resulting in delayed updates and a stagnant security posture. Any effective OT security solution must therefore be purpose-built to align with OT’s unique operational constraints and priorities, as retrofitting IT solutions without this fundamental understanding is often destined for failure. A solution that inherently minimizes disruption and simplifies management will achieve far greater adoption and success in OT environments.

A significant challenge stems from the widespread prevalence of legacy OT systems. Many of these assets are decades old, running on outdated operating systems like Windows 7 or XP, and relying on vendor-locked hardware. These systems frequently lack modern security features, are prohibitively difficult or expensive to upgrade, and often no longer receive vendor support. Crucially, these older systems often cannot be patched or updated without incurring significant operational downtime, rendering them perpetually vulnerable to known and unknown exploits.

This pervasive presence of decades-old, unpatchable, and unsupported legacy systems means these systems are not just temporarily unpatched; they often cannot be patched at all due to their age, proprietary nature, or lack of vendor support. This directly gives rise to “forever-day” vulnerabilities, meaning these security flaws will persist indefinitely. The long operational lifecycle of OT equipment ensures that these vulnerabilities remain a permanent, unmitigated attack surface. Consequently, traditional security models that rely heavily on regular patching are inherently insufficient for a significant portion of the OT landscape

A truly robust OT security solution must provide a compensatory control, effectively acting as a “virtual patch,” to shield these vulnerable systems without requiring direct modification or operational downtime

The Growing Sophistication of Cyber Threats

The increasing convergence of IT and OT networks, driven by advancements in AI and the Internet of Things (IoT), has blurred boundaries between these two domains. While offering efficiency benefits, this convergence simultaneously eliminates the historical “air gap” that once protected OT, exposing industrial systems to IT vulnerabilities and direct internet connectivity, significantly expanding the overall attack surface. This integration, while beneficial for efficiency and enhanced analytics, simultaneously dismantles the traditional “air gap” that historically safeguarded OT systems, exposing them to IT vulnerabilities and the internet, creating a significantly expanded and inherently more complex attack surface.

The benefits of convergence come with a steep increase in risk if not managed with a fundamentally different security approach. Security solutions for converged IT/OT environments cannot simply be IT solutions extended to OT; they must be purpose-built to handle the unique sensitivities of OT while securing the new IT/OT interfaces, specifically addressing lateral movement and initial access vectors that exploit this convergence.

A staggering statistic reveals that over 70% of successful breaches now leverage lateral movement techniques, including ransomware, malware propagation, credential harvesting, remote services exploitation, and “living off the land” tactics. Attackers, once inside the perimeter, move laterally to escalate privileges, access sensitive data, and deploy payloads, often remaining undetected for extended periods, averaging 95 days. This high percentage of breaches involving lateral movement indicates that traditional perimeter defenses are insufficient. The “inside is trusted” model is broken, necessitating a shift to internal segmentation and continuous verification.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the threat landscape. Attackers are increasingly employing AI for automated reconnaissance, enabling them to swiftly scan networks, identify open ports and services, collect open-source intelligence (OSINT), analyze misconfigurations, and meticulously map out infrastructure. This reconnaissance dramatically accelerates what was previously a time-consuming manual process, making critical infrastructure vulnerable to AI algorithms that can quickly identify and exploit weaknesses. This evolution of attack capabilities renders traditional perimeter defenses, which often rely on detecting known threats or acting after reconnaissance has occurred, increasingly insufficient. A proactive defense that prevents reconnaissance altogether, effectively “blinding” the attacker, becomes paramount, shifting the strategy from a reactive detection-and-response model to a proactive prevention model at the earliest possible stage of the cyber kill chain.

Reconnaissance is the crucial preliminary phase of any cyberattack, where attackers gather vital information about a target system’s vulnerabilities. Therefore, breaking the MITRE ATT&CK chain at its earliest stages, specifically the Discovery phase (Tactic TA0102), is paramount for effective OT defense. The strategic importance of this early disruption cannot be overstated. In OT, where downtime and physical impact are critical, preventing an attack from even starting (by denying reconnaissance) is far more valuable than detecting it during the mid-attack phase. This shift in the defense paradigm from containment to preemption provides a significant strategic advantage.

A proactive defense that prevents reconnaissance altogether, effectively “blinding” the attacker, becomes paramount.

A New Paradigm: Network Cloaking for OT Security

Network Cloaking delivers the first security architecture that can provide AI-resistant solutions for OT.

In Plain Terms

Cloaking software creates a “secure virtual network overlay” that runs on top of your existing OT network. It makes devices completely invisible unless the user is pre-approved. Here’s how it functions:

1. Secure Overlay Network

  • Cloaking software sets up a virtual address space and routing layer.
  • It operates independently of your physical IP structure like a private network map

2. No Device Exposure by Default

  • Devices behind the cloaking layer do not respond to ICMP, ARP, or port scans.
  • IPs, MACs, and services are hidden, not broadcasted or advertised.

3. Access Requires Mutual Authentication

  • A client must authenticate first using certificates and MFA.
  • Only after successful verification does the tunnel form and access routes become available

4. Built-in Microsegmentation

  • Users are allowed to see only the assets assigned to them.
  • All other assets remain cloaked, even from other verified users.

5. Encrypted Point-to-Point Communication

  • Once connected, data moves through a fully encrypted tunnel
  • No traffic is routed over traditional paths. No ARP, no broadcast, no lateral exposure.

Where It Is Installed?

Cloaking software is not installed on OT devices. Instead, it runs on trusted systems such as:

No Network Rebuild Needed

Cloaking is a software overlay — not a replacement for your existing network.

What Happens to Unauthorized Traffic?

If a user or device isn’t authenticated:

Scalability and Simplicity

Cloaking is designed for large, distributed OT environments:

Table : Building a Network Cloaking Overlay: Side-by-Side Comparison

Traditional OT Network

With BlastWave Network Cloaking Overlay

Same IPs across sites: Multiple sites often use the same IP ranges (e.g., 192.168.1.x), causing conflicts.

Same internal IPs retained: Sites keep their existing IPs; no re-IPing required.

Manual fixes required: Admins must manually configure firewalls and NAT for communication between overlapping addresses.

Overlay network created: A secure overlay is set up using 172.16.x.x, mappingeach site to a new reachable address.

Firewall + NAT at every site: Each site must handle its own external access rules and firewall policies.

Centralized NAT-aliasing: Devices are aliased (like NAT) to new addresses and accessed through a unified BlastShield mesh.

Slow configuration: Changing IPs or setting up NAT/firewalls across many devices can take weeks or months.

Fast setup via API: Devices are imported via API (from asset discovery tools), and overlay mapping is automated.

High admin effort: Each device’s address may need to be manually updated for communication or remote access.

DNS-based access: External systems connect using overlay DNS names, not IPs; internal addresses stay private.

Difficult to scale: Supporting hundreds of sites or thousands of devices requires constant manual upkeep.

Easily scales to thousands: BlastShield maps tens of thousands of devices across hundreds of sites in days.

Limited visibility: Admins must know and maintain internal IPs across every site.

Simplified management: Admins only manage overlay addresses and names exposed to external systems.

Network Cloaking:
Foundational Technologies and How It Works

Understanding BlastShield’s Network Cloaking and Secure Overlay Technology

A secure overlay is a virtual network fabric constructed logically on top of an existing physical network infrastructure, abstracting the underlying hardware and topology. Unlike traditional flat or physically segmented networks, an overlay creates a programmable, encrypted,and authenticated communication path between designated endpoints, regardless of their physical location or the intervening network segments.

In practical terms, a secure overlay takes the internal IP addresses of all devices on the network and maps them to a different addressing schema, forcing all traffic to and from the devices to pass through the device that is routing traffic for the OT network (in this case, the BlastShield Gateway). BlastShield creates a mesh between all gateways in the secure overlay, and individual users authenticate themselves to the Orchestrator for full mesh connectivity.

This virtualized approach enables the dynamic establishment of secure tunnels or encrypted paths, where all data traffic is encapsulated and cryptographically protected, ensuring confidentiality and integrity. The “secure” aspect of the overlay mandates strong mutual authentication of endpoints and robust encryption (e.g., AES-256) for all data flowing within the overlay, effectively creating a private, trusted communication channel over a potentially untrusted public or corporate network.

The concept of a secure overlay is inextricably linked with network cloaking. By encapsulating and encrypting traffic and dynamically establishing communication paths only between authenticated and authorized devices, the secure overlay effectively “cloaks” or hides the existence of endpoints, services, and even the internal network topology from unauthorized entities. Only devices that are part of the overlay, have been authenticated, and are specifically authorized for a particular communication flow can “see” and interact with other overlay participants.

Any unauthenticated or unauthorized actor attempting to scan the network or probe for vulnerabilities will not detect the cloaked rvices or devices. Cloaking significantly reduces the attack surface by making critical assets virtually invisible to anyone not granted explicit, secure access.

Distinction from Traditional Firewalling and Access Control

While traditional firewalls primarily function by enforcing access control based on predefined rules, determining which specific types of traffic are permitted or denied, network cloaking alters an attacker’s perception of the network. Instead of merely filtering traffic, it actively conceals the network infrastructure itself. A cloaking system does not respond to network scans (unlike a firewall system, which presents a visible interface), rendering the devices behind it undiscoverable and unanalyzable, thereby preventing the exploitation of both known and zero-day vulnerabilities.

This distinction highlights a significant evolution in cybersecurity strategy. Traditionalfirewalls operate within a framework wherethe network, or its services, are inherentlyvisible to an attacker. Their role is to inspecttraffic and make a binary decision: allow ordeny. An attacker, having identified a target,can still attempt to exploit known vulnerabilities or misconfigurations. Network cloaking,conversely, seeks to make the target invisiblefrom the outset, representing a fundamentalshift from a “detect and block” paradigm to a“hide and prevent discovery” paradigm. It signifies that modern cybersecurity approachesare increasingly embracing preemptivemeasures to reduce the attack surface beforeany malicious activity can even commence,thereby bolstering overall security by preventing the crucial initial reconnaissance phaseof most attacks.

Technology Used in BlastShield’s Network Cloaking

Network Address Translation NAT) for Obscurity

Network Address Translation (NAT) is a fundamental networking method that enables a public Internet Protocol (IP) address to represent computers residing within a private IP network. It functions as a critical intermediary, acting as both a translator and a bridge, to manage communication for all devices within a private network as they interact with the public internet. NAT operates at Layer 3, the network layer, of the OSI model.

BlastWave’s implementation of NAT for network cloaking results in several key deliverables:

  • Concealment of Internal Structure: NAT ensures that sensitive information, such as private internal addresses and the overall internal network topology, is not exposed to the public Internet. The internal network is a “stub domain,” where all traffic is localized and remains internal.
  • Eliminating IP Overlap Issues: All traffic for each device in the overlay must pass through the BlastShield gateway and is internally mapped to its overlay address by a combination of internal IP address and MAC address. A private IP address (10.1.1.1) or subnet (10.1.1.x) address can be reused by multiple devices on the overlay network, not only at multiple locations, but even on the same local network. In scenarios where devices come with pre-installed IP addresses, this capability can dramatically simplify and accelerate OT deployments.
  • Names, not addresses are commonly used to connect to devices: To simplify connectivity within OT environments, BlastShield assigns DNS names as part of the overlay, and administrators configure their applications to connect to device names (like camera.1stfloor.mybusiness.com) rather than needing to remember the IP addresses of thousands of devices on the OT network.

NAT’s fundamental purpose was to conserve IP addresses. However, its design inherently establishes a barrier between internal private addresses and the public internet, rendering internal devices less discoverable. This “hiding” effect, while a secondary benefit rather than a direct security feature, is weaponized in network cloaking.

Security in networking often emerges from the synergistic application of various technologies, some of which provide indirect advantages. While “security by obscurity” is generally viewed as an insufficient standalone defense, when combined with other robust security measures, the obscurity provided by NAT becomes a valuable component of a multi-layered cloaking strategy. It effectively reduces the initial attack surface, compelling attackers to expend greater effort merely to identify potential targets before they can even attempt to exploit vulnerabilities.

Different variants of NAT (Table below) offer specific functionalities that contribute to network obscurity

NAT Type

Description

Cloaking Contribution

Use Case

Static NAT (SNAT)

Assigns a fixed, one-to-one mapping between a private IP address and a public IP address.

Provides a consistent public face for a specific internal device, while still hiding its private IP address from direct external view

Useful for devices requiring continuous, uninterrupted external access, such as web servers or security cameras.

Overlapping NAT

Used when an internal network uses registered IP addresses that are also in use on another network. The router maintains a lookup table to map these overlapping addresses to unique, registered IP addresses

Resolves IP address conflicts while maintaining internal network functionality, indirectly obscuring the true (conflicting) internal IP space from external networks.

Scenarios where two networks with overlapping IP address ranges need to communicate with each other.

Layer 2 Forwarding and Segmentation for Isolation

Layer 2 segmentation is a networking strategy that involves dividing a network into multiple distinct segments at the data link layer (Layer 2) of the OSI model, typically using Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANs). VLANs enable the logical grouping of devices to communicate as if they were physically located on the same network, regardless of their actual physical location.

The mechanisms of Layer 2 forwarding and segmentation contribute to network isolation and, indirectly, to cloaking:

  • VLANs (Virtual Local Area Networks): VLANs are central to Layer 2 segmentation, enabling the creation of logically separate networks within a single physical infrastructure. By assigning a distinct VLAN ID to specific groups of devices, network administrators can effectively isolate traffic, thereby enhancing security and mitigating network congestion. Each VLAN operates independently, which simplifies network management and contains broadcast domains, preventing broadcast traffic from propagating across the entire network.
  • MAC Address Tables: Network switches play a pivotal role in Layer 2 segmentation by directing data traffic based on Media Access Control (MAC) addresses. Switches maintain a MAC address table that maps the unique MAC addresses of devices to their corresponding VLANs and switch ports. This mechanism ensures that packets are efficiently forwarded only to their intended recipient within a given segment, minimizing unnecessary network traffic and offering a foundational layer of security.
  • VLAN Tagging: The process of VLAN tagging involves appending a VLAN ID to the header of each Ethernet frame. When a packet traverses the network, switches read this VLAN ID to determine the appropriate forwarding action, restricting the packet’s movement exclusively to those ports that share the same VLAN ID, thereby isolating and directing traffic precisely within its designated segment. Trunking protocols, such as IEEE 802.1Q, facilitate the transport of VLAN information between switches, allowing multiple VLANs to coexist on a single physical link and optimizing network resource utilization.

BlastWave leverages a capability called Port Isolation Mode (also known as Protected Port or Private VLAN Edge), a Layer 2 feature implemented on network switches to enhance security by preventing direct communication between specific ports within the same VLAN.

While seemingly counterintuitive to the fundamental purpose of a VLAN (which is to allow devices within the same broadcast domain to communicate), port isolation strategically restricts local forwarding to mitigate insider threats, prevent specific attack vectors, and enforce granular microsegmentation at the access layer.

For a network engineer accustomed to traditional VLAN configurations, understanding port isolation requires a shift in perspective from broad broadcast domains to highly restricted peer-to-peer communication within a segment. Unlike standard VLAN ports, where all member ports can communicate with each other, ports configured in isolation mode cannot directly send frames to other isolated ports within the same VLAN. Their only allowed communication path is typically with “uplink” or “promiscuous” ports on the same switch, which, in the BlastShield microsegmented network, is the BlastShield Gateway. A device connected to an isolated port can reach the broader network (via the BlastShield) but cannot directly communicate with another device connected to a different isolated port on the same switch, even if both are in the same VLAN and IP subnet.

In essence, port isolation mode is a surgical Layer 2 security mechanism that allows network engineers to enforce fine-grained logical separation between endpoints residing within the same broadcast domain, significantly enhancing the security posture by limiting lateral communication and reducing the attack surface at the very edge of the network.

Layer 3 Routing and VPNs for Traffic Forwarding

Layer 3 routing forms the backbone of inter-network communication, responsible for forwarding data packets between disparate networks based on their respective IP addresses. Routing protocols are integral to this process, exchanging information to construct and maintain routing tables, which in turn dictate the optimal paths for packets to reach their intended destinations.

Several Layer 3 principles apply to network cloaking:

  • Virtual Private Networks (VPNs): VPNs establish secure, encrypted tunnels over public network infrastructures, effectively extending a private network across a shared, untrusted medium. A VPN client encrypts data before transmission and sends it through this secure tunnel to a VPN server, which then decrypts the data and forwards it to its ultimate destination on the internet
  • Data Encryption: Within the VPN tunnel, data encryption occurs using robust cryptographic algorithms, such as AES, before transmission. Encryption ensures that only authorized parties possessing the correct decryption key can access and interpret the original, intelligible data, rendering the content of the traffic unintelligible to any unauthorized entity that intercepts it, effectively cloaking its meaning
  • Routing Policies: Routing policies constitute a set of rules that govern the path data packets take through a network. They empower administrators to exert granular control over traffic flow, prioritize specific types of traffic, and reroute data to circumvent network failures or congestion.

Software-Defined Networking (SDN) for Dynamic Site-to-Site Secure Communications

Software-Defined Networking (SDN) represents an innovative architectural paradigm that fundamentally decouples the network control plane from the data plane. This architectural separation centralizes network intelligence within a software-based controller, enabling more flexible, efficient, and automated network management through programmable interfaces and Application Programming Interfaces (APIs).

SDN’s core principles and capabilities are highly conducive to implementing dynamic network cloaking strategies:

  • Dynamic Network Segmentation: SDN empowers organizations to create and adjust network segments on the fly, eliminating the need for manual reconfiguration of hardware devices. This dynamic control enables rapid changes to network configurations, facilitating swift adaptation to evolving business requirements or emerging security threats.
  • Centralized Policy Enforcement: The SDN controller functions as the “brain” of the network, offering a logically centralized view and the inherent capability to reprogram the forwarding plane at any given moment. This centralized control enables the consistent enforcement of security policies across the entire network infrastructure, including the dynamic adjustment of firewall rules and access controls in real-time.
  • Real-Time Adaptability: The programmable nature of SDN allows for real-time adjustments to network parameters in response to changing traffic demands or newly identified threats. Network cloaking strategies can be dynamically updated to counter novel reconnaissance techniques or evolving attack patterns, moving beyond the limitations of static firewall rules.
  • Virtual Network Creation: SDN facilitates the creation of virtual networks that can effectively segment different types of traffic, thereby enhancing security and reducing network congestion. These virtual networks can be specifically designed to isolate critical systems or sensitive data, preventing unauthorized access and lateral movement within the network.

Traditional network security, including rudimentary cloaking methods, often relies on static configurations and predefined rules. SDN’s core principle of decoupling the control plane from the data plane and centralizing network intelligence fundamentally transforms cloaking from a static defense into a dynamic, adaptive capability. Instead of fixed firewalls, SDN enables real-time reconfiguration of network behavior.

Software-Defined Perimeter for Dynamic Secure Remote Access

A Software-Defined Perimeter (SDP) represents a highly dynamic, identity-driven approach to network security that fundamentally reverses the traditional model of network security. Instead of connecting users to a network and then attempting to secure internal resources with firewalls, an SDP directly and securely connects a user to a specific application or resource. It operates on the principle of “never trust, always verify,” building a unique, one-to-one encrypted segment for each authorized user-to-resource connection.

This architecture is composed of key logical components: an SDP Controller (the brains, enforcing policy based on identity and device posture), Initiating Hosts (the client devices requesting access), and Accepting Hosts or Gateways (the servers or network segments hosting the applications).

When an Initiating Host attempts to access a resource, it first authenticates itself and its device posture with the SDP Controller. The Controller grants access based on pre-defined policies that incorporate user identity, device, location, and other contextual attributes. Crucially, if access is approved, the Controller then instructs both the Initiating Host and the Accepting Host/Gateway to establish a mutually authenticated, encrypted tunnel. This connection is dynamic and ephemeral, created only for the duration of the session and between the specific authorized endpoints required for the particular application. Network exposure does not occur until after the user identity and authorization are successful.

Network cloaking builds from the inherent capability of an SDP. Because an SDP operates on a default-deny principle, any application, server, or resource protected by it remains invisible and inaccessible to any unauthorized entity. Unlike traditional networks, where services might broadcast their presence or leave open ports waiting for connections, an SDP-protected resource simply does not respond to unauthenticated or unauthorized probes. Technologies like Single-Packet Authorization (SPA) can be employed, where the client sends a cryptographically signed packet to the SDP gateway before any ports are opened. If the packet is not valid, the gateway remains “dark” and unresponsive, meaning an attacker performing reconnaissance (e.g., port scanning, network mapping) on the broader internet or even within a compromised segment of the underlying network would not detect the presence of the SDP-protected resources. The SDP effectively creates a “Dark Network” around the protected assets, significantly reducing the attack surface by making them undetectable until identity and context are fully verified.

Feature/Aspect

Software-Defined WAN (SD-WAN)

Software-Defined WAN (SD-WAN)

Primary Goal

Optimize WAN connectivity, application performance, and cost.

Reduce attack surface, enforce Zero Trust, and control granular access

Focus

Network-centric: How traffic flows across the WAN.

Identity/Application-centric: Who or what can access specific resources?

Visibility

Makes the WAN more visible to administrators for performance.

Makes applications and resources invisible to unauthorized users.

Network Access

Connects sites or users to the network.

Connects users and devices directly to applications and resources, not the network.

Initial Trust

Assumes a site/VPN tunnel is trusted once established

Assumes no trust by default; verifies every connection request.

Primary Beneficiary

IT/Network Operations (performance, cost, agility).

Security Operations (threat reduction, compliance, granular control)

Architectural Layer

Primarily Layer 3 and above (routing, application awareness).

Primarily Layer 3-7 (authentication, authorization, application access)

Building a Network Cloaking Overlay

How does Network Cloaking build a secure overlay? Let’s start with a traditional multisite network, where a local administrator configures devices without corporate guid-ance, resulting in overlapping addresses.

In this OT network (see Diagram 1 right), we have four sites, all of which use the same IP address range (192.168.1.x), a configuration commonly found in SMB WAN routers and firewalls. Several devices share the same IP addresses, which means that the OT administrator must take steps to enable these sites to communicate with each other without issues.

  1. In many OT networks, administrators deploy a firewall at each site and implement dynamic NAT for most devices. At the same time, externally reachable devices employ static NAT mappings to connect to public sites. If the number of externally addressable devices is significant, the configuration task can take weeks or months for an OT network with thousands of devices
  2. Each site could manually change the IP ranges and addresses of all its devices, a process that could take months or even years.
Diagram 1

With BlastWave, a Network Cloaking overlay shortens this entire process by creating an overlay network (see Diagram 2 right).

In a secure overlay network, each site retains all of the “internal” addresses exactly as configured. The administrator creates an overlay network using the 172.16.x.x subnet, and each device in each location is aliased (aka NATed) to a new address advertised as reachable to the BlastShield mesh network.

The devices are typically imported via an API into the BlastShield system (from an asset discovery solution), and the addressing and naming can be automated. Now, the only changes needed for external systems or remote access users are that they connect to the overlay DNS name of the device or system, rather than an IP address. Changes by the administrator to the overlay addresses or even the internal address of a device are transparent to users.

For the OT administrator, changing a few control systems (which can be fed by an export from the BlastWave Orchestrator), device addressing configurations, and informing the users of the DNS name to connect to is a vastly preferable scenario than needing to change thousands of devices. In real-world settings, BlastShield ingested tens of thousands of devices across hundreds of sites into an overlay network within a matter of weeks.

Diagram 2

One real-world use case that has proven its value to customers is how network cloaking can make integration of new assets (acquired via a merger or acquisition) into the acquiring company’s network (see Diagram 3 below). Let’s now add a newly acquired site to the overlay network, one that happens to use the same private IP range (which may happen in an M&A scenario):

The new site requires no changes to integrate seamlessly into the overlay. All devices, including ones with overlapping IP addresses on other sites, are simply mapped into the overlay and immediately become addressable to all users of the overlay. This example shows the acquisition of a new site, but a divestment would also be seamless. If a site were sold (or even lost) and the BlastShield orchestrator removed the gateway at the site from the overlay, the configuration of any remaining systems on the site would reveal nothing about the network architecture of the company’s systems or network.

Diagram 3

Communication in the Network Cloaking Secure Overlay

How do systems, devices, and remote access users communicate with each other in the overlay? Let’s go back to our current network state diagram:

The entire overlay network is a “flat” subnet of 172.16.x.x, where all traffic routes through the BlastShield overlay network, meaning that there are no “routing protocols” running in the mesh, as the overlay appears to be a flat network. However, each overlay IP will be “owned” by a single gateway or a remote access user, and the orchestrator controls that mapping. Each device or user is also configured with a least privilege access policy for specific destinations in the overlay (for example, user tom@user.com can communicate with PLC1. user.com, HMI1.user.com, and port 443 to historian.user.com) that limits their ability to communicate with (or even see) other devices in the overlay.

Diagram 4

The Orchestrator dynamically updates all systems with policy changes when a new user or site is added (similar to an SD-WAN). For remote users, this translates to a direct connection to any remote site, improving performance since no traffic is sent through a hub-and-spoke network or forwarded through a cloud proxy.

Each device maintains its locally configured address and routes traffic to the BlastShield Gateway by default. The BlastShield Gateway evaluates all traffic against the configured policies to determine if it will be forwarded or dropped. If the destination is within the overlay network, the gateway forwards the traffic over an AES-encrypted tunnel to the correct gateway, where the overlay address is NATed to the local IP address of the destination device and sent to the destination.

Diagram 4

BlastShield:
The Definitive Network Cloaking Solution for OT

BlastWave’s BlastShield solution embodies the principles of network cloaking and Zero Trust, offering a definitive software-defined approach that is uniquely suited to address the complex challenges of OT environments and decisively outperforms traditional hardware-based solutions.

Architecture and Agentless Deployment for OT Environments

BlastShield’s Software-Defined Segmentation (SDS) operates at Layer 2 and Layer 3, providing granular control without impacting ongoing operations. Its software-defined nature allows for rapid policy adjustments and microsegmentation creation instantly, with a few clicks, eliminating the need for complex physical reconfigurations or disruptive downtime. In environments where “downtime is costly” and “production lines can’t simply shut down”, the ability to adapt security policies rapidly without disruption directly supports OT’s core priority of availability, contrasting sharply with the “rigid” and “slow to adapt” nature of hardware firewalls.

BlastShield offers flexible deployment options. It can be deployed as an in-line IP subnetwork (Gateway) or with agents on protected servers or clients. Crucially for OT, Gateways can be used for devices where agents cannot be installed, which is common for legacy and headless systems. This agentless capability for many OT devices is a significant differentiator for Zero Trust. The ability to deploy agentlessly directly bypasses the complexity, operational disruption, and compatibility issues that are significant barriers for traditional microsegmentation in OT. Cloaking makes implementation significantly easier and less disruptive for OT environments, which prioritize uptime and reliability.

The BlastShield Orchestrator provides a central console for policy management, enabling seamless, real-time policy enforcement across the entire network. It dynamically adapts to evolving needs, connecting everything with precise policies when needed, simplifying complex security operations.

In complex OT environments with diverse, often legacy, assets, centralized, software-defined control simplifies management overhead. This change directly counters the “complexity of policy management” inherent in distributed hardware firewalls, reducing the risk of misconfiguration and human error. Unlike traditional NGFW, policies are network-wide and not applicable to a single firewall at a time.

Creating a True Virtual Air Gap with BlastShield

BlastShield creates a “virtual air gap” by combining network cloaking (rendering devices invisible) with strict Zero Trust access controls, simulating the security benefits of physical isolation without physically disconnecting critical OT systems.

This virtual air gap ensures that data cannot be viewed, corrupted, deleted, or overwritten by anyone without validated credentials and successful Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA), providing robust protection against ransomware and insider threats. While a physical air gap is often impractical in modern, converged OT environments, BlastWave’s virtual air gap provides the security benefits of isolation (e.g., breach containment, protection for unpatchable devices) while maintaining operational connectivity. This protection is a crucial balance for modern OT, enabling secure remote access and data flow without compromising critical assets.

BlastWave’s virtual air gap provides the security benefits of isolation (e.g., breach
containment, protection for unpatchable devices) while maintaining operational connectivity

Eliminating Reconnaissance and Blinding AI-Powered Attacks

BlastShield’s network cloaking actively conceals OT network infrastructure, making critical assets undiscoverable to unauthorized users and scanning tools. It alters the network’s address space and visibility, presenting a “dark network” where traditional reconnaissance tools return no results.

This invisibility is particularly effective against AI-powered reconnaissance tools, which automate and accelerate the process of network mapping and vulnerability identification. By denying AI algorithms the information they need to launch targeted attacks, BlastShield effectively “blinds the attackers”, shifting the defensive paradigm from detecting attacks (after they’ve started) to preventing them from even beginning by denying attackers the initial reconnaissance phase. Cloaking is a proactive and fundamental disruption to the attacker’s methodology, forcing them to expend far more resources with far less success.

By stopping reconnaissance and discovery, BlastShield directly impacts the initial phases of the MITRE ATT&CK ICS framework, preventing attackers from gaining crucial information about the OT environment, effectively breaking the cyber kill chain at its earliest point (Discovery) and preventing progression to initial access, execution, and lateral movement. The profound strategic advantage of preventing the “first step” of an attack cannot be overstated. In OT, where the consequences are physical and severe, stopping an attack before it even identifies a target is the most effective form of defense, minimizing risk and ensuring operational continuity more effectively than detection and response after a breach.

Table 2: BlastWave BlastShield: Key Features and Benefits for OT Security

The following table summarizes BlastWave’s BlastShield key features and their direct benefits for OT security, reinforcing its position as the definitive solution for OT protection.

Feature

Benefit for OT

Network Cloaking

Renders critical assets invisible to unauthorized users, drastically reducing the attack surface and preventing reconnaissance.

Virtual Air Gap

Isolates critical assets without physical disconnection, protecting against ransomware and insider threats while maintaining connectivity

Zero Trust Access

Enforces the "never trust, always verify" principle with least privilege access, ensuring that only authorized entities can interact with OT systems.

Software-Defined Microsegmentation

Provides granular control down to individual devices (L2/L3), limiting the blast radius of a breach and containing lateral movement.

Protection against Zero-Day and Forever-Day Vulnerabilities

Acts as a "virtual patch" for unpatchable legacy systems, shielding them from exploits and extending their secure operational life

AI-Powered Reconnaissance Prevention

Blinds attackers and neutralizes AI-driven discovery attempts, breaking the MITRE ATT&CK chain at its earliest stage

Simplified Management and Deployment

Enables rapid, non-disruptive deployment and reduces operational overhead through automated policy management and a centralized orchestrator.

Agentless Deployment Capability

Compatible with legacy and headless OT devices, overcoming a major barrier to microsegmentation in industrial environments.

Comprehensive Lateral Movement Prevention

Provides granular containment at Layer 2 and via secure tunnels, significantly limiting an attacker's ability to spread within the network.

Proactive Protection Against Zero-Day and Forever-Day Vulnerabilities

For unpatchable legacy OT devices, BlastShield’s network cloaking acts as a “virtual patch.” By making these vulnerable devices undiscoverable and inaccessible to unauthorized entities, it shields them from known and zero-day exploits, even if an official patch is unavailable or impossible to apply.

This approach provides a crucial layer of protection for OT systems that cannot be easily updated or patched, extending their usable life securely without disrupting operations. BlastWave directly solves the “impossibility” of patching legacy OT systems by providing an external, non-disruptive protective layer. The virtual patch is a critical solution for the pervasive “forever-day” problem in OT, enabling organizations to safely extend the life of critical but vulnerable equipment, thereby avoiding costly and disruptive rip-and-replace scenarios.

Significant Return on Investment

BlastWave deployments deliver ROI in time savings, cost savings, and most importantly, operational resilience. The exact ROI depends on the network deployment, but payback time is in months, not years.

Time Savings

  • Deployment time
  • Remote access account creation, deletion, and maintenance
  • Firewall troubleshooting and IP address conflict resolution

Cost Savings

  • Physical Site visits
  • Lower hardware costs
  • Eliminate phishing training

Operational Resilience

  • Reduce outages and downtime
  • Flexible 3rd Party Remote Access
  • Automation and observability enablement

Simplified Patch Management and Reduced Operational Overhead

By providing a virtual air gap and virtual patching capabilities, BlastWave removes the immediate urgency for downtime-inducing patches on operational systems. The air gap allows organizations to maintain productivity and operational continuity without the constant pressure of applying patches that could disrupt critical processes. BlastShield simplifies security management by creating simple peer-to-peer encrypted tunnels and enforcing policies without complex, manual firewall rule sets, significantly reducing administrative burden.

The software-defined nature and agentless deployment options further reduce operational costs by eliminating the need for extensive hardware firewalls, complex physical reconfigurations, and associated labor and maintenance expenses. BlastWave’s solution is not just a security tool; it’s an operational enabler. By reducing the complexity and disruptive nature of traditional security, it directly contributes to OT’s core business objectives of continuous operation and cost efficiency, making it a highly attractive investment.

Comprehensive Lateral Movement Prevention

BlastShield’s software-defined microsegmentation creates micro-perimeters around critical assets, enforcing strict access control and minimizing the impact of compromised credentials. It prevents lateral movement by Secure Remote Access users within the network. It can even provide Layer 2 lateral movement protection for local network connections, offering a more comprehensive containment strategy than traditional firewalls.

By delivering comprehensive lateral movement prevention, BlastWave embraces the Zero Trust principle of “assume breach” and minimizes the blast radius when an initial compromise occurs, transforming a potential network-wide disaster into an isolated incident.

Comparative Analysis:
BlastWave vs. Traditional Hardware-Based Solutions

A direct comparison highlights the decisive advantages of BlastWave’s software-defined approach over traditional hardware-based firewalls from vendors like Fortinet and Palo Alto, particularly in the context of OT security.

Deployment Agility and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)

BlastWave offers rapid deployment, enabling instant policy changes and dynamic configuration updates with software agility by significantly reducing manual intervention and accelerating time-to-market for new services and security policies. This agility directly translates into lower operational costs and a superior Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) by minimizing expensive hardware upgrades and complex physical reconfigurations. The economic case for SDS is as compelling as its technical superiority. The rigidity and complexity of hardware solutions are not just technical inconveniences but significant economic liabilities that impact long-term budget, resource allocation, and overall business agility.

In contrast, hardware firewalls from Fortinet and Palo Alto are rigid and slow to adapt. They require a tangible physical setup, complex network integration, and often specialized staff for installation and management, leading to higher upfront capital expenditures and significant downstream costs, including labor, maintenance, and prolonged implementation times, resulting in a substantially higher total cost of ownership (TCO).

Scalability and Policy Management

BlastWave is inherently dynamic, agile, and scalable due to its software-defined nature. It leverages automated asset discovery, intelligent grouping, and dynamic policy orchestration, enabling consistent policy enforcement across diverse environments from a centralized orchestrator. The key to scaling microsegmentation lies in automating policy creation and management, enabling rapid adaptation to ephemeral IP addresses and dynamic OT environments, where traditional hardware often struggles to keep up.

Hardware firewalls, on the other hand, face significant scalability challenges, particularly for granular microsegmentation. Policy management is often labor-intensive, relying on manual configurations, which leads to complex rule proliferation that is difficult to manage at scale, resulting in performance degradation or costly upgrades. Hardware firewalls inherently struggle with this due to their rigid, rule-based nature.

Effectiveness Against Modern Threats

BlastWave’s combination of network cloaking and Zero Trust principles offers a proactive defense that fundamentally changes the security posture. It eliminates reconnaissance, including sophisticated AI-powered attempts, by making critical assets invisible. It creates a virtual air gap and provides virtual patching capabilities for zero-day and forever-day vulnerabilities, and comprehensively prevents lateral movement at Layer 2. This capability represents a move from a reactive, signature-based security model to a proactive, architectural one. For OT, where the impact of a successful unknown attack can be severe, this proactive approach offers a far superior security posture.

Traditional hardware firewalls, being perimeter-focused, are largely reactive to threats. They struggle with unknown or zero-day threats due to the limitations of signature-based detection and can be blind to new or customized malware. While they can perform Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), this often comes with a performance impact on real-time OT protocols, forcing a compromise between security depth and operational continuity.

Suitability for Diverse OT Environments and Legacy Systems

BlastShield is designed for the realities of OT environments. Its agentless deployment is highly suitable for legacy and headless devices, allowing seamless integration with existing infrastructure without requiring network re-architecture. Furthermore, BlastWave’s solution aligns with IEC 62443 standards for zones and conduits, simplifying compliance efforts. This architectural approach inherently aligns with and simplifies compliance frameworks, shifting the compliance burden from a reactive, checklist-based exercise to an integrated outcome of a robust security architecture, making it more efficient and effective.

Traditional hardware firewalls often require re-architecting networks (such as VLANs and subnets) and struggle with agentless devices, as well as compatibility issues with older operating systems and protocols. This friction creates a significant operational hurdle, leaving many legacy OT systems vulnerable to attack.

Operational Impact and Simplicity of Management

BlastShield is engineered for simplified management and reduced operational overhead. Its user-friendly design and automated policy creation minimize administrative burden, directly addressing the fact that OT teams often lack cybersecurity expertise and are stretched thin, which can exacerbate the risk of misconfigurations and delays in implementing complex security solutions. A solution that offers “consumer-grade ease-of-use” and simplifies management directly empowers these teams, reducing human error and improving their overall security posture. BlastWave’s solution is not just a security tool; it’s an operational enabler. By reducing the complexity and disruptive nature of traditional security, it directly contributes to OT’s core business objectives of continuous operation and cost efficiency, making it a highly attractive investment.

In contrast, traditional firewall management is labor-intensive, involving complex manual configurations that are difficult to deploy and manage. It requires specialized expertise and represents a significant time sink for policy updates. This complexity leads to human error and management fatigue, which are significant contributors to security incidents. Simplicity and automation, as offered by SDS, directly mitigate these human-factor risks and operational continuity.

Feature Comparison:
BlastWave BlastShield vs. Traditional NGFWs(Fortinet/Palo Alto)

This table provides a definitive side-by-side comparison, highlighting the decisive advantages of BlastWave’s software-defined approach across critical OT security criteria.

Criterion

BlastWave BlastShield (Software-Defined)

Traditional NGFWs (Fortinet/Palo Alto)

Core Security Paradigm

Zero Trust ("Never Trust, Always Verify").

Perimeter-focused, "trust inside"

Primary Focus

Proactive prevention, attack surface elimination, and operational continuity. Purpose-built for OT, prioritizes safety/availability.

Reactive detection, perimeter defense. Adapted from IT, may conflict with OT priorities.

Microsegmentation Approach

Software-defined (L2/L3), granular, identity-based, peer-to-peer tunnels.

Hardware-centric (VLANs, subnets, complex rules), often L3/L4, tedious for East-West.

Lateral Movement Prevention

Comprehensive, Layer 2 protection, encrypted tunnels, and granular containment.

Limited for East-West without complex configurations; relies on detection post-entry.

Reconnaissance Prevention

Network Cloaking (which makes assets invisible) actively blocks unauthorized traffic and blinds AI-powered scans.

Primarily detection-based (IPS, app control); not active cloaking.

Zero-Day/Forever-Day Protection

Virtual patching, via cloaking or isolation, renders vulnerable devices undetectable.

Relies on signatures and patches; limited for unpatchable systems.18 Virtual patching via IPS signatures is a compensatory control.

Architectural Layer

Excellent; designed to protect them without modification, agentless deployment.

Challenging compatibility issues, limited direct protection, and often require re-architecture.

Deployment Model

Agentless (via Gateways), software-defined, flexible.

Hardware appliances, physical setup, can be virtualized but still hardware-bound in principle.

Operational Complexity

Low; simplified, centralized Orchestrator, automated policy

High; labor-intensive manual configurations, inconsistent documentation/support.

Scalability

High; dynamic, adapts to ephemeral IPs, and automated policy management.

Limited by physical hardware, rule counts, and performance bottlenecks.

TCO

Lower; reduced capital and operational costs

Higher; significant upfront and downstream costs.

Conclusion:
The Imperative for Cloaking and Zero Trust in OT Security

The contemporary cybersecurity landscape demands a radical rethinking of how Operational Technology networks are protected. The inherent characteristics of OT—prioritizing safety and availability, the prevalence of unpatchable legacy systems, and real-time operational constraints—render traditional, perimeter-focused hardware firewalls increasingly inadequate. These conventional defenses, designed for a different era of IT security, struggle with the nuances of East-West traffic, introduce unacceptable operational complexity and latency with deep packet inspection, and are fundamentally ill-equipped to secure the vast array of aging industrial assets.

The rise of IT/OT convergence and the proliferation of sophisticated, AI-powered reconnaissance techniques further underscore the critical need for a new paradigm. Attackers are no longer merely breaching perimeters; they are leveraging automated tools to map networks with unprecedented speed and moving laterally once inside, exploiting the “trust inside” fallacy of traditional security.

Against this backdrop, network cloaking and Zero Trust emerge not as incremental improvements but as the foundational pillars of effective OT cybersecurity. This approach fundamentally shifts the defensive strategy from reactive detection to proactive prevention. By rendering critical assets invisible, network cloaking effectively “blinds” attackers, denying them the crucial reconnaissance data needed to launch targeted attacks and breaking the MITRE ATT&CK chain at its earliest, most impactful stage. This capability is particularly vital against the new wave of AI-powered threats.

Furthermore, the combination of network cloaking and Zero Trust principles creates a true “virtual air gap,” isolating unpatchable legacy OT devices without disrupting operations. This air gap provides a robust, external layer of defense, effectively “virtually patching” systems vulnerable to zero-day and forever-day exploits that traditional patch management cannot address.

BlastWave’s BlastShield exemplifies this transformative approach. Its software-defined architecture offers unparalleled deployment agility, simplified policy management through a centralized orchestrator, and comprehensive lateral movement prevention down to Layer 2. A software-defined solution translates directly into reduced operational overhead, a significantly lower total cost of ownership, and a security posture that is inherently more resilient and adaptable to the dynamic nature of OT environments.

For network engineers tasked with safeguarding critical infrastructure, the evidence is clear: relying on traditional hardware-based firewalls for comprehensive OT protection is a strategy fraught with escalating risk and unsustainable costs. The future of OT security lies in embracing the unseen—in making critical assets invisible, enforcing absolute trust verification, and adopting software-defined solutions purpose-built for the unique demands of industrial operations. Network cloaking and Zero Trust are not just the correct solution; they are the imperative for ensuring the safety, availability, and integrity of our most vital systems.

APPENDIX

Traditional Defenses:
The Limitations of Hardware-Based Firewalls in OT

Conventional hardware-based firewalls, including Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFWs) from vendors like Fortinet and Palo Alto, were once cornerstones of network security. However, their architecture and operational models present significant limitations when applied to the unique and demanding requirements of modern OT environments.

Perimeter-Focused Security vs. Internal Threats (East-West Traffic)

Traditional firewalls are primarily designed as perimeter defenses, focusing on inspecting and controlling North-South (external-to-internal) traffic. They operate on the implicit assumption that once traffic has passed this perimeter and is “inside” the network, it can generally be trusted. The “inside is safe” fallacy is a critical flaw against modern cyberattacks, particularly those involving lateral movement, which are specifically designed to exploit this very assumption.

The inherent focus on North-South traffic leaves a critical blind spot for East-West movement, which is the vector for over 70% of successful breaches. Relying solely on perimeter firewalls is akin to fortifying the outer walls of a castle but leaving all internal doors unlocked. The security paradigm must fundamentally shift from a perimeter-centric defense to one that enforces internal segmentation and adheres to Zero Trust’s “never trust, always verify” principle for all traffic, especially critical East-West communications within OT. Referred to as Zones and Conduits by IEC62443, this concept is a cruicial part of securing OT networks.

While Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFWs) claim microsegmentation and Layer 7 (L7) inspection capabilities, implementing these for East-West traffic often requires SSL decryption for content inspection, which can be complex and introduce considerable resource demands. Achieving granular microsegmentation with traditional next-generation firewalls (NGFWs) often requires complex VLAN reconfigurations, subnetting, or the deployment of additional hardware or software solutions.

The problem is staffing, access to equipment, and visibility. An architectural mismatch occurs when a perimeter-focused tool is forced to solve an internal problem, resulting in complexity and inefficiency rather than a native, streamlined solution.

NGFWs utilize Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) to analyze packet payloads for advanced threat detection and application control. However, the very act of performing DPI inherents latency and performance overhead. Although there are hardware-based mitigation techniques to minimize this, OT environments require low cost hardware and often run on hardened platforms. Mandating specific hardware can be limiting, so OT solutions need to be extremely efficient and speedy. Some asset owners get nervous when any system introduces more than “switch level” latency, , whn even millisecond delays can impact safety, operational efficiency, and critical processes.

For example, Fortinet’s data suggests a performance hit of approximately 50% when SSL deep inspection is enabled. Applying DPI to specialized industrial protocols (Modbus, DNP3, OPC UA) can be particularly problematic due to their unique characteristics and real-time constraints, creating a significant dilemma for OT security: the advanced security feature (DPI) that defines NGFWs can directly conflict with OT’s primary operational priorities (safety, availability, real-time performance).

This forces organizations to either compromise on security by exempting critical traffic from inspection or risk operational disruption. A solution that provides robust security without introducing unacceptable latency or performance degradation is therefore critical for OT.

A solution that provides robust security without introducing unacceptable latency or performance degradation is critical for OT

Operational Challenges and Scalability

Traditional microsegmentation sounds good on paper, but in OT environments, it quickly becomes a maintenance burden. VLANs, firewall rules, and NAC systems demand constant tuning and deep in-field expertise. resources most teams are already stretched thin on. Every change introduces risk: one misstep can bring down a process or force emergency rollbacks. As device counts scale, so does the operational fragility. What starts as a security measure ends up as a tangle of exceptions and manual workarounds. The result isn’t just complexity, it’s a system too fragile to trust. For teams responsible for keeping operations safe and online, the overhead is simply unsustainable.

The sheer volume of devices in modern OT environments, often numbering in the tens of thousands, makes manual policy management practically impossible and unsustainable. This complexity itself becomes a significant security vulnerability, as it makes effective and consistent policy enforcement difficult, thus undermining the very purpose of the security device.

Deploying and making changes to hardware firewalls requires physical setup and network integration, which can lead to disruptive downtime. In OT, where production lines run 24/7, patching and updates often must wait for planned downtime, leaving known vulnerabilities exposed for extended periods.

Hardware firewalls also have inherent throughput and connection limits dictated by their physical architecture. As networks grow and implement granular microsegmentation policies, these devices can become performance bottlenecks, necessitating costly hardware upgrades or compromises in security granularity. Specific examples include Fortinet FortiGate 201F devices showing performance bottlenecks, with observed speeds significantly below advertised maximums, especially when complex NAT rules are applied. Palo Alto NGFWs also have defined limits on security rules (1,000 native, 6,000 with Panorama) and address objects, which can impede scalability in large, dynamic environments. Hardware firewalls, by their very nature, possess finite, hard-coded limits that directly impede granular microsegmentation and dynamic scaling. This forces organizations into costly “rip-and-replace” cycles or compromises on security depth, creating recurring costs and operational challenges.

Beyond the significant upfront capital expenditure for hardware and licenses, traditional firewalls incur substantial downstream costs related to project management, labor for configuration and maintenance, and the very real risk of prolonged asset exposure due to lengthy implementation times. The true cost of hardware firewalls extends far beyond the initial purchase. The rigidity and inflexibility of hardware solutions are not just technical limitations but economic liabilities. They drive up total cost of ownership (TCO) through increased labor, extended project timelines, and the compounding risk of prolonged vulnerability, making them less economically viable in the long run for dynamic environments.

Inadequacy for Legacy and Unpatchable Devices

Traditional firewalls and their associated security models (e.g., agent-based solutions, frequent patching) struggle to effectively integrate with and protect legacy OT devices that cannot run modern security software, are not easily updated, or lack support for secure communication protocols.

A significant portion of OT devices are end-oflife, lack built-in security features, and cannot be updated or patched without incurring severe operational consequences, primarily extensive downtime. The philosophical and technical differences between IT and OT mean that traditional IT security tools, including firewalls, often do not seamlessly integrate into OT environments, especially when dealing with highly specialized and outdated hardware and operating systems. They cannot query ICS devices in their native language or provide granular control without requiring significant network re-architecture, leaving these vulnerable systems exposed.

The core design of many traditional firewalls, which often requires agents, frequent updates, or specific protocols, is fundamentally incompatible with the realities of legacy OT systems, creating an unbridgeable gap in security for a critical portion of the OT landscape, as their operational model directly conflicts with the realities of legacy systems, leaving them perpetually vulnerable.

The following table summarizes the inherent shortcomings of traditional hardware-based Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFWs) when applied to the unique demands of OT microsegmentation. This comparison highlights the baseline of inadequacy in current approaches, setting the stage for a superior alternative.

Criterion

Fortinet FortiGate NGFW

Palo Alto Networks NGFW

Primary Security Focus

Primarily North-South (perimeter defense); East-West requires specific features and integrations

Strong perimeter defense; native East-West microsegmentation often requires integrations or specific deployments.

Granularity of Microsegmentation

Achieved via FortiSwitch/VLANs, but can be complex for very granular East-West.

Can be achieved with VLANs/subnets or through acquisitions/partnerships like Zero Networks, implying native limitations.

Scalability for Microsegmentation

Performance bottlenecks (e.g., FortiGate 201F throughput limits) and policy scale limits.

Policy rule limits (e.g., 1,000 native rules, 6,000 with Panorama) can restrict granular microsegmentation at scale.

Policy Management Complexity

Can involve significant manual effort for complex rule sets; central management tools exist, but complexity remains for granular microsegmentation.

Known for complex configuration and a steep learning curve, requiring skilled staff. Manual rule management can be tedious.

Suitability for Legacy/Unpatchable OT

Aims to mitigate via IPS/virtual patching, but the inherent lack of security in older devices remains a challenge.

IoT Security may classify mobile devices as IT, but does not provide policy recommendations; it also addresses general challenges with unpatchable OT devices.

DPI Performance Impact on Real-time OT Protocols

DPI can introduce significant performance hits (e.g., 50% or more), especially with SSL inspection

While newer hardware improves, DPI can still cause performance hits.

Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Implications

High upfront costs, ongoing maintenance, and potential for costly upgrades due to performance limits.

High cost of devices, licenses, and training.