This isn't a theoretical concern. The very factors that delayed proximity card replacement for so many organizations—proprietary systems, vendor lock-in, migration complexity—stem directly from the lack of interoperability in access control systems. Understanding how universal standards prevent repeating these mistakes is essential for organizations planning credential migrations.
Most organizations didn't choose proximity cards because they were insecure. They chose them because proximity technology solved real problems, was widely available, and became the de facto standard. However, "standard" in the sense of widespread adoption does not necessarily mean "standard" in the sense of interoperability.
As proximity cards proliferated, so did proprietary “lock-in” technology. Different manufacturers began using different card formats, readers began requiring specific controllers, and controllers worked only with particular software platforms. While the initial intention was good, the consequences became complicated. Organizations were forced to follow suit and built infrastructure around specific vendors, not because those were necessarily the best choices, but because components from different vendors simply wouldn't work together.
This created a predictable pattern:
Initial Deployment: Organization selects Vendor A for access control based on features, price, and availability.
Infrastructure Investment: Over years, the organization deploys Vendor A readers throughout facilities, installs Vendor A controllers, implements Vendor A software, trains staff on Vendor A systems, and distributes Vendor A credentials to all employees.
Lock-In Realization: When newer, more secure credentials become available, the organization discovers that:
Delayed Migration: Rather than face massive replacement costs, organizations continue using known-vulnerable proximity cards while hoping that:
This isn't a failure of planning—it's the inevitable result of proprietary systems. Research on cloud vendor lock-in shows that lack of standardization creates barriers that inhibit interoperability and portability, a dynamic that applies equally to physical security infrastructure.
Organizations moving beyond proximity cards have an opportunity to break this cycle. But only if they prioritize interoperability during their migration strategy.
"Universal standards" or “open” have become industry buzzwords used by vendors to suggest flexibility they may not actually deliver. Understanding what genuine universal standards provide—and what they don't—is critical for making informed decisions.
Genuine universal standards share specific attributes:
Publicly Available Specifications: The standard itself is documented and accessible, not proprietary information controlled by a single vendor. Anyone can implement the standard without special licensing or exclusive access to specifications.
Multi-Vendor Support: Multiple manufacturers develop conformant products, providing genuine choice in the marketplace. The standard isn't dominated by a single vendor whose interpretation becomes the de facto requirement.
Independent Governance: The standard is managed by an independent body or consortium, not by a vendor with commercial interests in promoting their own interpretation. Standards development includes input from diverse stakeholders such as manufacturers, integrators, and end users.
Conformance Testing: Mechanisms exist to verify that products actually conform to the standard, not just marketing claims about compatibility. Products must successfully pass conformance testing to make valid interoperability claims.
It's equally important to understand what universal standards don't automatically provide:
Universal Functionality: Standards typically define core interoperability functions, not every possible feature. Vendors may offer proprietary extensions beyond standard capabilities.
Instant Plug-and-Play: While standards dramatically reduce integration complexity, they don't eliminate all configuration and testing requirements. Real-world deployments still require proper planning and verification.
Complete Vendor Independence: Even with universal standards, organizations may develop dependencies on specific vendors through features that extend beyond standard capabilities. The key is ensuring core functionality remains portable.
Elimination of All Migration Effort: Standards make future transitions substantially easier, but don't eliminate migration entirely. They shift from "impossible without complete replacement" to "achievable with reasonable effort."
Universal standards aren't just technical benefits—they create concrete business value that becomes clear when comparing proprietary and standards-based approaches:
Proprietary Systems:
Standards-Based Systems:
Over typical 10-20 year access control system lifecycles, the TCO advantages of interoperable systems substantially outweigh any initial cost differences.
Proprietary systems create several risk categories:
Vendor Viability Risk: What happens if your access control vendor is acquired, exits the market, or discontinues your product line? With proprietary systems, you face forced migration under time pressure.
Technology Obsolescence Risk: When your single vendor doesn't keep pace with security developments, you're stuck with outdated technology until complete replacement becomes unavoidable.
Pricing Risk: Without competitive alternatives, vendor pricing decisions directly impact your costs with no recourse beyond total system replacement.
Compliance Risk: If regulations evolve faster than your vendor's product roadmap, achieving compliance may require expensive custom development or full system replacement.
Standards-based systems don't eliminate these risks entirely, but they dramatically reduce exposure. Multiple conformant vendors mean alternatives exist if your primary vendor fails to meet evolving requirements.
Consider common scenarios where organizations need access control flexibility:
Merger/Acquisition: Standards-based systems from acquired companies can be integrated rather than replaced, thereby preserving infrastructure investments and minimizing disruption during the organizational transition.
Multi-Site Operations: Organizations with facilities in different regions can allow local IT teams to select appropriate hardware while maintaining centralized management through standard interfaces.
Technology Evaluation: New security technologies can be piloted without committing to complete infrastructure replacement. If trials prove unsuccessful, reverting has minimal impact.
Vendor Competition: Regular technology refreshes can include competitive evaluation, ensuring the organization benefits from marketplace innovation and competitive pricing.
These operational benefits compound over time, creating organizations that can respond to changing requirements rather than being constrained by infrastructure limitations.
Organizations convinced of universal standards' value still face practical implementation questions. How do you actually build an interoperable security infrastructure?
Traditional security procurement focuses on features and pricing from specific vendors. Standards-based procurement adds conformance requirements:
Example Requirement Framework:
This doesn't eliminate vendor selection—it constrains selection to vendors whose products can interoperate with others, protecting the organization's future flexibility.
Few organizations replace entire access control systems simultaneously. Standards enable hybrid approaches that mix legacy and modern infrastructure:
Migration Strategy:
This approach using multi-technology readers and standards-based management creates a bridge from proprietary legacy systems to interoperable future infrastructure.
Standards claims aren't always accurate. Successful interoperability requires verification:
Pre-Deployment Testing:
Despite clear benefits, organizations sometimes hesitate to prioritize interoperability. Understanding common objections helps address legitimate concerns:
Initial procurement costs for standards-conformant products may exceed proprietary alternatives. But this comparison ignores lifecycle costs:
TCO analysis consistently favors standards-based approaches for systems with multi-year lifecycles.
This may be true today, but consider:
Standards-based infrastructure provides insurance against these inevitable changes.
Valid concern. Standards typically define core interoperability, not comprehensive functionality. But this is a feature, not a bug:
The goal isn't feature parity with proprietary systems—it's ensuring portability of essential functions while allowing innovation in additional capabilities.
Perhaps the most common objection, and the most self-defeating. This reasoning perpetuates a passive stance to improving a lock-in scenario:
Every year that passes with continued proprietary purchases increases the difficulty of future migration. Starting an incremental transition toward standards-based infrastructure at least begins building future flexibility.
While this series focuses on credential migration, interoperability benefits extend throughout the security infrastructure From video surveillance to intrusion detection to identity management, physical-cyber convergence, and business intelligence, interoperability could be the key to evolving your access system from a business liability to your greatest advantage.
The LEAF Community's mission directly addresses the challenges outlined throughout this series. Moving beyond proximity cards isn't just about deploying more secure credentials—it's about establishing an interoperable security infrastructure that remains flexible as technologies and threats evolve.
The LEAF Framework specifically addresses credential interoperability gaps that other standards don't fully solve:
Credential Portability: Ensuring credentials work across different manufacturers' devices
Multi-Technology Support: Accommodating physical and logical convergence, and continued innovation, within a unified framework
Open Governance: Community-driven development ensuring the framework serves user needs, not vendor commercial interests
Practical Implementation: Focus on real-world deployability, not just theoretical interoperability
Organizations planning credential migrations should evaluate not just the security of replacement credentials, but their interoperability characteristics. Replacing one proprietary technology (proximity cards) with another proprietary technology (vendor-specific smart cards) solves the immediate security problem while creating the next generation's vendor lock-in challenge.
The credential transition prompted by proximity card vulnerabilities represents an opportunity organizations shouldn't waste. The choices made now—about technologies, vendors, and interoperability—will shape security infrastructure flexibility for the next decade or more.
Key principles for building sustainable security:
Prioritize Interoperability: Make standards conformance a requirement, not a nice-to-have, in security procurement.
Verify Conformance: Don't accept marketing claims—validate standards support through independent testing and real-world interoperability verification.
Plan for Change: Assume that vendors, technologies, and requirements will change. Design infrastructure that can adapt rather than requiring complete replacement.
Participate in Standards Development: Join standards organizations, provide feedback on specifications, and help shape frameworks that serve real-world needs.
Educate Stakeholders: Help executives, procurement, facilities teams, consultants, and integrators understand that interoperability isn't a technical detail—it's a strategic requirement.
Start Incrementally: Don't wait for a complete system replacement. Begin incorporating standards-based components now, building interoperability incrementally.
This “transition to modern” moment isn't just about eliminating vulnerable credentials. It's about establishing a new approach to physical security infrastructure—one where interoperability and vendor independence are foundational requirements, not afterthoughts.
Organizations that seize this opportunity will build security systems that protect against not just today's threats, but tomorrow's—systems flexible enough to incorporate emerging technologies without forcing complete replacement, systems where competitive marketplaces drive innovation and value rather than creating dependencies.
The technology exists. The standards exist. The only question is whether organizations will choose to use them.
About the LEAF Community
The LEAF Community creates universal standards for access control systems to achieve interoperability across the industry. We bring together leading companies and organizations to overcome vendor lock-in barriers and promote standardized frameworks that allow different access control technologies to work together seamlessly. Learn more at leaf-community.com.
.png){kind=small}
.png)
.png)
