- \n
- Manufacturing has been the most attacked industry for four consecutive years as of 2024.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Factors such as the shift to the cloud, use of shared workstations and passwords, and Industry 4.0 expand the attack surface.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Insider threats in manufacturing are as critical as external attacks, as insiders occupy a position of trust and may be even harder to detect.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Coupled with an effective insider threat management program, cybersecurity solutions like Syteca help organizations significantly reduce internal risks.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Cybersecurity statistics in the manufacturing industry<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Manufacturing has been the most attacked industry for four consecutive years, accounting for 26% of all attacks in 2024, according to the IBM Security X-Force 2025 Threat Intelligence Index<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/syteca_site_uploads.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/10014618\/figure-1-insider-threat-program-for-manufacturing-1024x642.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nOut of all possible cyber risk scenarios, insider threats require special attention as insiders\u2019 actions are extremely difficult to detect. According to the 2025 Insider Risk Report by Cybersecurity Insiders<\/a>, 93% of organizations say that insider threats are just as or even more difficult to detect than external cyberattacks. Additionally, insider threat metrics<\/a> show that these incidents are becoming more frequent, leading to even more data breaches:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"Cybersecurity](\"https:\/\/syteca_site_uploads.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/10002602\/figure-2-insider-threat-program-for-manufacturing-1024x380.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nWhy manufacturing faces growing external and internal threats<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The particulars of the manufacturing industry underline the acute need to continually enhance the cybersecurity of your IT infrastructure. So why is the number of threats constantly increasing?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"Cybersecurity](\"https:\/\/syteca_site_uploads.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/10002750\/figure-3-insider-threat-program-for-manufacturing-1024x496.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nThe target area for cybercriminals in the manufacturing industry is extended due to the following factors:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Convergence of IIoT and OT<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The industrial internet of things<\/a> (IIoT) enhances manufacturing with smart technology, while operational technology<\/a> (OT) simplifies the control of physical equipment. However, security measures and protocols for these technologies are still developing, and the convergence of the IIoT, OT, and IT exposes manufacturing to cyberattacks. According to the State of IoT Summer 2024 report by IoT Analytics<\/a>, the global number of IoT devices is expected to reach 40 billion by 2030, up from 16.6 billion in 2023, which is why IoT cybersecurity must become a top priority for manufacturers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shared workstations<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
In manufacturing facilities, employees across multiple shifts often rely on shared computers and terminals to manage production lines, monitor systems, and access sensitive data. This creates accountability gaps, as it makes it difficult to distinguish between users or trace specific actions back to individuals. Limited identity controls on shared workstations<\/a> open the door to insider threats, operational mistakes, and compliance violations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shift to the cloud<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Gartner predicts<\/a> that \u201cover 50% of organizations will use industry cloud platforms to accelerate their business initiatives by 2029\u201d. Securing cloud infrastructure is challenging due to the number of attack vectors, the complexity of cloud environments, and the unclear division of security responsibilities between clients and cloud service providers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Password sharing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Employees often resort to sharing passwords out of convenience. Uncontrolled password sharing significantly expands the attack surface, as credentials written on pieces of paper, sent by messengers, reused across production and IT networks, or casually handed between shifts, create multiple weak entry points for attackers. Each shared password not only undermines access control but also eliminates accountability, making it easier for cybercriminals to move laterally across connected systems. According to Verizon\u2019s 2025 Data Breach Investigations Report<\/a>, compromised credentials remain a factor in 34% of breaches in manufacturing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hybrid office and the remote workforce<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Remote work settings lack visibility and control over employee activity. Remote environments are difficult to secure, as they lie outside an organization\u2019s physical perimeter. Hybrid work environments also expand the area of potential attack. When cybersecurity officers must protect both in-house and remote environments, the possibility of human error increases and, in turn, so does the risk of a data breach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Supply chain interactions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The supply chain is another source of cyber threats and insider activity. The Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2025 report by the World Economic Forum<\/a> reveals that 54% of large organizations consider supply chain challenges to be the biggest barrier to achieving cyber resilience. Even if only one partner, vendor, or supplier is compromised, it may affect the security of other supply chain members and cause operational disruptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
The pandemic accelerated hybrid work and the shift to the cloud, challenging the CISO to secure an increasingly distributed enterprise. The modern CISO needs to focus on an expanding attack surface created by digital transformation initiatives such as cloud adoption, IT\/OT-IoT convergence, remote working and third-party infrastructure integration.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ruggero Contu, Senior Director Analyst at Gartner<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
To sum it up, the expanded target area in the manufacturing industry results in:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Lack of visibility. <\/strong>It can be challenging to identify all devices and network connections involved in the production process. This creates a problem when choosing the right cybersecurity controls and threat detection mechanisms.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- More vulnerabilities.<\/strong> Lack of visibility and control leads to more assets being susceptible to cyber threats. Unprotected operational technology, IIoT devices, remote work connections, and numerous supply chain entities can be used as entry points by hackers and malicious insiders.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Heightened risks.<\/strong> All of the above result in a higher probability of cybersecurity incidents and other unwanted consequences for manufacturers. Consequences are also amplified \u2014 a single security event may endanger valuable intellectual property and even human lives.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Main consequences of insider threats in manufacturing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
To better understand what\u2019s at stake, let\u2019s take a closer look at the consequences of insider threat activity in manufacturing:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"Major](\"https:\/\/syteca_site_uploads.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/10014645\/figure-4-insider-threat-program-for-manufacturing-1024x374.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nOperational disruptions.<\/strong> Malicious actors may sabotage production, causing major disruptions to the manufacturing process and system breakdown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Financial losses.<\/strong> Incidents caused by malicious insiders frequently go hand in hand with revenue loss and compliance fines. Interruptions in business operations may also result in additional fines for violating terms of service-level agreements with supply chain partners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reputational damage.<\/strong> Data breaches often result in damage to a brand\u2019s image and loss of reputation among partners, customers, and investors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Harm to human health.<\/strong> Cybersecurity incidents at hazardous production facilities can cause equipment breakdowns that lead to injuries or even fatal casualties. The famous Stuxnet attack on the uranium enrichment plant in Iran, for example, almost led to a nuclear catastrophe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critical data loss.<\/strong> Insiders with access to sensitive data may commit fraud, data theft, or damage important information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What data is at risk in the manufacturing industry?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Manufacturers have an abundance of sensitive data from a variety of internal and external sources, manufacturing and production technologies, and an ecosystem of suppliers, vendors, partners, and customers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That said, here are the data types that are most at risk in the manufacturing industry:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"Data](\"https:\/\/syteca_site_uploads.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/10002824\/figure-5-insider-threat-program-for-manufacturing-1024x353.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nFinancial data.<\/strong> All financial information about a manufacturing company may become a point of interest for the company\u2019s competitors. Financial data can help competitors make better deals with a company\u2019s partners and customers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Intellectual property (IP).<\/strong> IP theft<\/a> is one of the biggest cybersecurity threats in the industry, and most data breaches in manufacturing relate to IP. A manufacturing company\u2019s IP has many facets, including information on research and development, engineering, manufacturing operations, and trade secrets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Customer and employee data.<\/strong> Insiders may help competitors steal business from a manufacturing company by selling them valuable customer profiles and transaction data. Sensitive customer and employee data may also be compromised to undermine a company\u2019s reputation and force the company to pay extensive fines to authorities that regulate data privacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Types of insiders threatening the manufacturing industry<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
We\u2019ve discussed what data must be protected first and foremost in your organization. Now, let\u2019s look at who<\/em> you need to be protecting this data from. Manufacturing companies should be aware of the following insider threat types<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"Types](\"https:\/\/syteca_site_uploads.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/10014718\/figure-6-insider-threat-program-for-manufacturing-1024x328.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nNegligent insiders<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Negligent insiders are employees who cause harm to an organization through unintentional misuse of information<\/a>, installation of unapproved applications<\/a>, leaking confidential data to LLMs<\/a>, and failure to follow recommended cybersecurity measures. This type of insider is involved in 55% of all insider-related incidents, according to the 2025 Cost of Insider Risks Global Report by Ponemon Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Malicious insiders<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Malicious insiders<\/a> are employees who use their authorized access to an organization\u2019s assets to perform malicious activity for personal gain. These insiders are difficult to identify, as they act as regular employees and execute ordinary work tasks alongside carrying out malicious activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Inside agents<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Inside agents are malicious insiders hired by external parties to perform industrial espionage<\/a> on a company, exfiltrate data<\/a>, or damage critical systems and information. Bribery or blackmail may be used to persuade inside agents to cooperate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Third parties<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Third parties are partners, suppliers, vendors, or other supply chain entities<\/a> with access to corporate IT infrastructure. They may compromise the company\u2019s data or systems by neglecting security measures, misusing data, or intentionally performing malicious actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Disgruntled employees<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Disgruntled employees are former or departing employees looking to take revenge on their employer by deleting data or causing harm to IT systems or manufacturing equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cybersecurity regulations for manufacturing companies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Governments and international cybersecurity organizations establish standards, laws, and regulations to protect organizations and their customers from cybersecurity incidents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To secure sensitive data and avoid extensive fines for non-compliance, companies operating in manufacturing must meet local and industry-specific cybersecurity compliance requirements. The most common are the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t <\/div>\n\n\t \n\n\t \n\n\t \n\t \t\t\t<\/div>\n\t \t\t<\/div>\n\t \t<\/div>\n\t <\/div>\n\t\n\t\t\t\n\nCybersecurity standards, laws, and regulations relevant to manufacturing<\/p>\n\n\n\t\t\t \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\nNIS2<\/a><\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\nCMMC<\/a><\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\nISA\/IEC<\/a><\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\nDORA<\/a><\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\nGDPR<\/a><\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\nPCI DSS<\/a><\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\nNIST 800-53<\/a><\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\nSWIFT CSP<\/a><\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\nISO 27001<\/a><\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\t\t\t \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n
While it\u2019s important to meet the requirements of these standards, laws, and regulations, mere compliance is not enough. Ensuring reliable cybersecurity requires managing all security risks and employing the corresponding cybersecurity solutions for manufacturers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Let\u2019s now review a few examples of insider threats in manufacturing that illustrate how these incidents typically play out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3 real-life manufacturing data breaches caused by insider threats<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Below, we provide three real-life data breach examples that clearly illustrate the increasing danger of insider threats in the manufacturing industry:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t <\/div>\n\n\t \n\n\t \n\n\t \n\t \t\t\t<\/div>\n\t \t\t<\/div>\n\t \t<\/div>\n\t <\/div>\n\t\n\t\t\t\n\nAffected organization<\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t <\/div>\n\n\t \n\n\t \n\n\t \n\t \t\t\t<\/div>\n\t \t\t<\/div>\n\t \t<\/div>\n\t <\/div>\n\t\n\t\t\t\n\nTSMC<\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t <\/div>\n\n\t \n\n\t \n\n\t \n\t \t\t\t<\/div>\n\t \t\t<\/div>\n\t \t<\/div>\n\t <\/div>\n\t\n\t\t\t\n\nYear<\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t <\/div>\n\n\t \n\n\t \n\n\t \n\t \t\t\t<\/div>\n\t \t\t<\/div>\n\t \t<\/div>\n\t <\/div>\n\t\n\t\t\t\n\n2025<\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t <\/div>\n\n\t \n\n\t \n\n\t \n\t \t\t\t<\/div>\n\t \t\t<\/div>\n\t \t<\/div>\n\t <\/div>\n\t\n\t\t\t\n\nType of incident<\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t <\/div>\n\n\t \n\n\t \n\n\t \n\t \t\t\t<\/div>\n\t \t\t<\/div>\n\t \t<\/div>\n\t <\/div>\n\t\n\t\t\t\n\nSuspected trade secret theft by inside agents<\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t <\/div>\n\n\t \n\n\t \n\n\t \n\t \t\t\t<\/div>\n\t \t\t<\/div>\n\t \t<\/div>\n\t <\/div>\n\t\n\t\t\t\n\nConsequences<\/p>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t <\/div>\n\n\t \n\n\t \n\n\t \n\t \t\t\t<\/div>\n\t \t\t<\/div>\n\t \t<\/div>\n\t <\/div>\n\t\n\t\t\t\n\n- \n
- Risk of trade secret leakage<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Potential loss of competitive advantage<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- National security risks<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Reputational and strategic risks tied to Taiwan\u2019s geopolitical role<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n \n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\t\t\t \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n
- More vulnerabilities.<\/strong> Lack of visibility and control leads to more assets being susceptible to cyber threats. Unprotected operational technology, IIoT devices, remote work connections, and numerous supply chain entities can be used as entry points by hackers and malicious insiders.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Lack of visibility. <\/strong>It can be challenging to identify all devices and network connections involved in the production process. This creates a problem when choosing the right cybersecurity controls and threat detection mechanisms.<\/li>\n\n\n\n