When discussing the security of cable ducts, the first risk that comes to mind is almost always copper theft. It is a concrete and growing problem that, in recent years, has affected power grids, telecommunications, railway networks, and industrial infrastructures across various countries.

However, viewing cable duct protection solely as a matter of theft prevention means barely scratching the surface of the problem. In many modern infrastructures, the value of the cable itself is far lower than the value of the service that cable enables.

A cable duct can carry power, telecommunications, data, railway signaling, or vital connections for the operation of an industrial plant. When a stretch is damaged, cut, or intentionally compromised, the consequences can be far more significant than the mere cost of replacing the cable. For this reason, perimeter protection for linear infrastructure must be treated as an essential component of physical security and operational continuity, not simply as an intrusion detection system designed to protect a physical asset.

The phenomenon of copper theft clearly demonstrates how much the operating context has changed for security managers. A recent article in the Financial Times highlighted how the surging value of copper is fueling a new wave of thefts impacting telecom networks, railway systems, and energy grids worldwide. The issue is therefore not just about the stolen material, but also the severe operational fallout resulting from service disruptions.

In the UK, for example, cable theft has had a major impact on telecommunications networks. Openreach estimated billions of pounds in damages over roughly a decade, while thousands of users experienced connectivity outages. In the railway sector, cable theft leads to delays, cancellations, and disruptions whose costs vastly exceed the value of the copper recovered by criminals.

This brings us to a fundamental concept in perimeter security: the asset to be protected is not necessarily the one we see. The cable represents the physical infrastructure, but the true asset is the service flowing through it. A data network, a railway communication system, or a critical infrastructure connection can have an operational value enormously higher than the physical material making it up.

Perimeter intrusion detection must therefore start from an understanding of this value and the consequences an infrastructure failure would entail.

Theft represents only one of several scenarios that must be evaluated during a risk assessment. A cable duct can be accidentally damaged during excavation work, targeted by vandalism or sabotage, or intentionally accessed by individuals seeking to disrupt a service or gain physical entry to the infrastructure.

When cables carry sensitive information, the problem takes on an even greater dimension. Unauthorized physical access to the network can pose a major risk even if cable theft isn't the primary goal. In certain scenarios, infrastructure tampering or physical wiretapping attempts can become part of a broader, more sophisticated attack.

For this reason, designing perimeter security for a cable duct requires a thorough threat assessment from the outset. Before discussing PIDS, cameras, fiber optics, or other detection technologies, one must understand what infrastructure is being protected, where it is located, how accessible it is, what realistic threats exist, and what the impact of an outage would be.

It is a simple yet crucial principle: technology should be the outcome of a risk assessment, not the starting point of the project.

Securing the perimeter of a building can be designed around a relatively compact, easily definable area. However, when protecting a cable duct that stretches over several kilometers, the challenges change entirely. The infrastructure may cross industrial zones, farmland, urban areas, roads, railways, and remote terrains—each with vastly different environmental conditions and accessibility levels along the route.

In this scenario, merely knowing that an event has occurred is not enough. For effective perimeter intrusion management, it is essential to know where it happened and, ideally, to have enough information to understand its nature. A generic alarm signaling a problem along a multi-kilometer stretch is of limited operational use, especially when the response team has to cover vast distances to reach the point of interest.

Therefore, in linear infrastructure protection, pinpointing location is often just as vital as detecting the intrusion itself. A PIDS (Perimeter Intrusion Detection System) must be evaluated not only on its ability to trigger an alarm, but also on the quality of information it provides to operators.

An effective perimeter security system should help answer very practical questions: Where is the incident occurring? How credible is the alarm? What type of disturbance was detected? And how quickly can the situation be verified and managed?

Distributed fiber optic sensing technologies represent one of the most effective solutions available for securing linear infrastructure. In this application, the fiber optic cable acts as a continuous sensing element along the protected path, detecting mechanical vibrations associated with activities like digging, tampering, or physical damage attempts.

The primary advantage of a distributed approach is the ability to monitor vast distances while maintaining precise location accuracy. This is particularly advantageous when the perimeter isn't defined by a physical fence, but by an infrastructure stretching over many kilometers.

Even here, however, focusing solely on technology isn't enough. A PIDS shouldn't be selected simply because it offers a specific technical feature or appears easy to install. The choice should depend on the risk assessment, environmental conditions, stretch length, required precision, and above all, the operational procedures that will be triggered once an alarm is raised.

A perimeter intrusion system only delivers true value when the data it generates can be swiftly translated into an actionable decision. If an alarm cannot be verified or lacks an adequate response protocol, even the most sophisticated technology risks being ineffective.

This philosophy drives GPS Standard’s approach to linear infrastructure protection. Over the years, numerous projects have been developed where perimeter security for cable ducts, pipelines, and expansive sites required much more than traditional detection methods.

GPS Standard developed MILES specifically for these applications. The system utilizes fiber optics and interferometric technology to detect mechanical disturbances along the protected infrastructure. For cable ducts, this allows operators to monitor the entire route and pinpoint the exact area where activity consistent with digging, tampering, or damage is detected.

According to GPS Standard's technical documentation, MILES can be configured to protect stretches of up to 25 kilometers and locate events with an accuracy down to a few meters, depending on configuration and application. Furthermore, using fiber optics as the sensing element requires no electrical power along the perimeter and is completely immune to electromagnetic interference—a common obstacle for other technologies.

These features make MILES a particularly compelling technology for perimeter security and intrusion protection in linear infrastructures. However, technology should never be viewed in isolation from its context. The same solution can yield dramatically different effectiveness depending on the environment, the type of infrastructure, and the security protocols implemented by the client.

This is perhaps the most critical point when it comes to cable duct protection. Before selecting a PIDS or any other detection technology, one must clarify what risk is being mitigated.

The question shouldn't simply be "Which system should we install?" but rather

Additionally, one must evaluate the time gap between event onset and detection, as well as the time required to dispatch a response.

A cable duct running through a busy industrial zone presents very different challenges than one crossing an isolated rural area. Similarly, the service being carried changes the evaluation entirely: a secondary connection and a line supporting a vital utility cannot be treated the same way.

Physical security is not merely a collection of devices. It is a process that starts with identifying assets and threats, and moves through technology selection, system integration, and response protocol definition.

This topic becomes even more critical when the cable duct belongs to critical infrastructure. Europe’s increasing focus on infrastructure resilience is driving organizations to intertwine physical security, cybersecurity, and operational continuity more closely than ever.

The CER Directive (2022/2557) introduced a European framework dedicated to the resilience of critical entities, mandating risk assessments and appropriate measures to prevent incidents and protect infrastructure. Concurrently, NIS2 has raised the bar for resilience and risk management regarding network and information system security.

For linear infrastructure, this evolution is particularly meaningful. Physical damage can trigger a digital service outage, while a cyber incident affecting a digital service can have tangible physical operational consequences.

Perimeter security must therefore be viewed within a broader framework of overall resilience. PIDS, video surveillance, access control, communications systems, and response protocols must work in unison whenever the risk level demands it.

In the end, the key question isn't how much the copper inside the cable is worth.

The key question is: How much is the service enabled by that cable worth?

This is the perspective that should guide the design of perimeter security for linear infrastructure. Copper theft may be the visible, immediate event, but the true impact manifests as lost connectivity, service outages, operational downtime, safety hazards, and financial or reputational damage.

Securing a cable duct should never be treated as merely mounting a sensor along a pathway. It demands a thorough risk assessment, sound physical security design, selection of the right technology, and seamless integration between PIDS, video surveillance, and alarm management systems.

The expertise developed by GPS Standard with MILES is built on this very approach: engineering technology to solve real perimeter security challenges and applying it to match the unique demands of the infrastructure.

Because the true goal of security isn't just detecting an intrusion.

It's understanding what is happening, where it is happening, and how quickly you can respond to prevent an incident from becoming a service outage.

Protecting the cable duct means protecting everything that relies on it.

In the design of a perimeter security system, one of the most recurring mistakes is continuing to think in terms of a single perimeter understood as a final barrier. In reality, no technology, no matter how advanced, is sufficient on its own to guarantee complete protection. It is precisely from this awareness that the layered protection model emerges, today considered one of the most solid references in the design of perimeter and physical security systems.

The underlying idea is simple, yet radical in its implications: any system can be bypassed or can fail, but a system composed of multiple coordinated levels is able to reduce overall risk, delay intrusion, and above all enhance detection and response capabilities. The point is not to add technologies together, but to build a coherent structure in which each element performs a specific function within a defence-in-depth logic.

In this sense, the most important shift is cultural before technological. For years, security has been interpreted as the protection of a boundary: fences, controlled access points, alarm systems on the outer perimeter. Today this approach is no longer sufficient, because it assumes that the goal is to prevent access, whereas in more advanced design reality starts from a different assumption: intrusion can happen, and the system must be able to manage it throughout its entire development.

Layered protection therefore introduces a broader view of the perimeter, which is no longer a line but a set of concentric and functional zones. Each zone contributes differently to overall security. We find a pre-detection level, a physical boundary protection level, and an internal level dedicated to safeguarding critical assets. Between these levels there is no rigid hierarchy, but rather operational continuity and information sharing.

In a more structured interpretation aligned with advanced design models, the perimeter can be understood as a system divided into overlapping functional areas:

One of the most interesting aspects of this model is the role of time, which becomes a central design variable. A layered system does not simply detect an event, but intercepts it at different stages of its evolution, gaining seconds, and sometimes minutes, which are essential for alarm management. An intrusion detected already in the outer areas, for example through long-range monitoring systems or non-invasive technologies, can be managed far more effectively than an event detected only at the fence line.

In contexts such as remote energy infrastructures, where distances are large and human presence is limited, this approach becomes particularly evident. A system based exclusively on physical boundary protection risks being reactive and late. The introduction of progressive detection layers instead transforms the event from sudden to progressively controllable, significantly improving intervention capability. On the other hand, in architecturally sensitive environments or where visual impact must be minimised, the layered logic allows technologies to be distributed more discreetly, favouring solutions integrated into the context or even non-visible systems, such as underground sensors capable of detecting physical ground variations without altering the surrounding environment. In this case as well, the value is not in the single technology, but in its placement within a broader architecture.

Another key element is the management of false alarms, which in layered protection is not addressed at the level of a single sensor, but as the result of correlation between different levels. An event detected at a single point has limited value; the same event validated by multiple systems, such as perimeter sensors and infrared barriers or other complementary technologies, becomes a reliable and operationally usable piece of information. It is precisely this reduction of ambiguity that represents one of the main advantages of the multilevel model.

When it comes to design, this approach inevitably leads to a stronger focus on integration. It is not enough to select effective technologies; they must communicate within a coherent system. The most advanced modern perimeter security systems follow exactly this direction: architectures in which sensors, analytics systems, and management platforms operate as a single information ecosystem, capable of adapting to context and reducing operational complexity. Within this logic, technological solutions that prioritise detection continuity and adaptability to environmental conditions also play a key role, including advanced sensing systems designed to integrate naturally into the ground or physical perimeter. The objective is no longer technological visibility, but silent effectiveness, meaning the ability to operate continuously, precisely, and reliably without interfering with the context.

Layered protection is therefore not only a technical model, but a true design and operational approach, which requires moving beyond the idea of security as a “sum of devices” and adopting instead a system logic, where each level has a precise function: anticipate, slow down, verify, and support decision-making. It is a model that demands coherence, because a single poorly designed level can compromise the entire protection chain.

Ultimately, the value of multilevel security does not lie in complexity, but in balance. A well-designed system is not the one that uses the most technologies, but the one in which each technology is placed in the right position, with the right role, and within a clear strategy. Only in this way does the perimeter cease to be a simple defensive line and becomes the first element of a dynamic system capable of evolving, adapting, and responding coherently to increasingly complex risk scenarios.

In the next article, we will explore the comparison between the main perimeter detection technologies, analysing the topic: “Thermal, Radar or Infrared? A comparison of perimeter detection technologies.”

In designing a perimeter security system, the greatest risk is not represented by the use of obsolete technology or by an unknown threat, but by a design error. Designing a perimeter security system starting from the available tools instead of from the context of the perimeter. This is a dynamic that is unfortunately still very widespread, fueled by rapid technological evolution and commercial pressure from the market, which often leads to the selection and installation of solutions misaligned with real operational needs.

First of all, it is essential to redefine the very concept of perimeter: it is no longer a simple physical line, a fence or a boundary, but a dynamic protection system that develops around the critical assets to be protected. Perimeters can be multiple and concentric, adapting to the distribution of value within a site, from the outer boundary to the most sensitive areas. This layered vision makes it possible to overcome uniform approaches and introduce differentiated levels of protection, more consistent with real protection priorities.

Risk analysis is not simply a preliminary, accessory phase in the design of the perimeter security system, but it represents a crucial point in the decision-making process that will determine the effectiveness of the entire security system. In the professional field, it is now evident how the quality of protection depends on the ability to understand and model risk, rather than on the choice of a specific technology. This principle is also consolidated in international literature, where risk analysis is described as a process based on the evaluation of three key elements:
• Threats: potentially harmful events (intrusions, thefts, sabotage)
• Vulnerabilities: weak points of the perimeter (fences, access points, isolated areas)
• Impact: economic and operational consequences

These variables must not be considered separately, but as interdependent elements. Risk is the result of the combination of these three variables, a significant threat may be acceptable in the presence of low vulnerabilities, while a structural weakness can become critical even in seemingly low-exposure contexts. In perimeter security design, it is therefore essential to evaluate them all, since ignoring even one would compromise the entire protection system.

Translating this theoretical framework into operational practice, however, requires a further step: contextualization. Each site has unique characteristics, and what represents a critical vulnerability in one case may be negligible in another. An isolated energy infrastructure, for example, is exposed to very different dynamics compared to a production site located in an urban area. Likewise, a logistics facility with large open spaces requires a different approach compared to a compact and densely compartmentalized structure. It is precisely at this stage that risk analysis becomes a practical tool. It is not only about identifying what could happen, but about understanding how and where it could happen, identifying the most probable intrusion paths and the truly exposed areas. It is then essential to define consistent countermeasures, despite the presence of an inevitable margin of uncertainty. There is no perfect prediction of attack scenarios, but it is possible to build sufficiently robust models to guide decisions based on the real characteristics of the perimeter to be protected.

In this context, technology takes on a consequent role, not an initial one. In environments where it is necessary to combine security and discretion, for example in architecturally sensitive contexts or in areas where visual impact must be minimal, the analysis may lead to buried solutions. Systems of this type, such as those based on underground volumetric sensors, make it possible to detect the passage of an intruder through variations in the detected field, effectively creating an invisible but continuous barrier. Their effectiveness lies not only in detection capability, but in their coherence with a scenario in which visibility and invasiveness represent a design constraint. In opposite contexts, characterized by large extensions and variable environmental conditions, the same analysis may lead to perimeter radar technologies. Solutions of this kind allow large areas to be monitored, movements to be tracked and different types of targets to be distinguished, significantly reducing false alarms. The ability to classify an event, distinguishing for example between an animal and a person, becomes a decisive factor when the main risk is related to the long-term reliability of the system.

When, on the other hand, the vulnerability is concentrated along the physical barrier, as in the case of fences, attention shifts to sensor systems installed directly on the perimeter. Advanced technologies based on sensitive cable or fiber optics do not simply detect a vibration, but analyze its signature, discriminating between environmental events and real intrusion attempts. It is in this field that the evolution of systems has led to increasingly reliable solutions, capable of dynamically adapting to operating conditions and significantly reducing the problem of false alarms. Looking at the bigger picture, a fundamental principle clearly emerges: there is no absolute best technology, but only technologies that are more or less suitable for a specific risk scenario. Buried systems, fence-mounted sensors, radars or hybrid solutions represent different tools, each with its own field of application. Their effectiveness depends exclusively on their coherence with the analyzed context.

Another often underestimated element concerns the evaluation of impact. Security is still too often perceived as a cost to be contained, but this view does not take into account the consequences of an unmanaged event. Operational interruptions, loss of materials, reputational damage or legal implications can generate costs significantly higher than the investment required for adequate protection. From this derives the principle of proportionality, central to any effective project. A well-designed system is not the most complex or technologically advanced, but the most balanced. Excessive security can become as inefficient as insufficient protection, generating operational complexity, high costs and management difficulties.

Finally, it is necessary to overcome the idea that risk analysis is a static activity. Contexts evolve, threats change and technologies are rapidly updated. The growing integration between physical and digital security is also redefining the concept of perimeter itself, introducing new variables and new risk surfaces. In this scenario, risk analysis must be understood as a continuous process, an integral part of security management. Ultimately, perimeter security does not arise from the choice of a sensor or a technology, but from a process of understanding. It is a balance between risk, context and objectives, in which every decision must be supported by a coherent analysis. Only by adopting this approach is it possible to build truly effective systems, capable not only of detecting an intrusion, but of doing so in the most appropriate way with respect to the operational scenario.

In the next article, we will enter the design dimension, analyzing how to translate this methodology into concrete choices and what the most common mistakes to avoid are in the implementation of a perimeter security system.

Perimeter protection is not merely a physical or technological barrier; it is a strategic element of corporate security. An integrated approach based on accurate risk assessment and the interaction between multiple defense layers makes it possible to transform perimeter protection into an intelligent, proactive, and truly effective system.

We are pleased to announce the launch of the new GPS Standard website, fully redesigned in terms of graphics, structure, and content. Over the past few months, we have worked on a complete overhaul of our online presence with a clear goal: to present security in a clearer, more comprehensive way, aligned with the evolution of our solutions.

The new website has been designed to offer a more intuitive, modern, and functional browsing experience, tailored both to security professionals and to those looking to explore the world of perimeter protection and intrusion detection.

All sections have been redesigned, with a strong focus on the product catalog, now more structured and enriched with detailed technical information, as well as on content dedicated to integrated security solutions, standards, and risk-assessment-based design approaches.

The new GPS Standard website is not just a visual update, but a true working tool: a reference point for designers, installers, and partners who want to deepen their knowledge of technologies, applications, and best practices in the security sector.

This launch marks another important step in our growth and innovation journey, fully aligned with our vision: real security, integrated and tailored to the specific risks of each site.

We invite you to visit the new website and stay connected: in the coming months we will share new content, technical insights, and updates on our systems.

Più di 36 mesi di sviluppo, oltre 15.000 ore di Ricerca e Sviluppo, un brevetto. Questo può essere il sunto del viaggio che ci ha portato a sviluppare il nuovo Radar 077. Basato sulla tecnologia CHIRP Radar, il sistema è disponibile nelle versioni Radar 077 Wide (90°) e Radar 077 Blade (+/- 4,5°) per la rilevazione di variazioni volumetriche generate nella zona protetta.

Ci sono voluti oltre 24 mesi di sviluppo ma quest'oggi è finalmente giunto il momento di svelare al mercato il nuovo BeeS, il nuovo sistema intelligente per la protezione di qualunque tipo di recinzione.

Vi invitiamo a leggere il comunicato stampa rilasciato questa mattina e a visitare la pagina del nostro sito dedicata al BeeS oppure contattaci.

Nelle scorse settimane abbiamo svelato alcune caratteristiche di BeeS, il nuovo prodotto di GPS Standard. Si tratta di un sistema di sicurezza perimetrale, sviluppato nei nostri laboratori e prodotto nella nostra sede di Arnad (AO). La nuova veste grafica è stata progettata per migliorare l’esperienza dei nostri clienti.

Ma esattamente BeeS cosa fa?

Per scoprirlo ripartiamo dal primo video teaser proposto, che presentava BeeS tramite alcuni brevi claim:

Grazie alla nuova elettronica sviluppata nei nostri laboratori, utilizzando chipset di ultima generazione con una potenza di calcolo estremamente elevata, un singolo analizzatore può gestire fino a otto canali da cinquanta metri l’uno, con diverse tecnologie di sensori per diversi tipi di applicazione.

L’elevata sensibilità dei sensori permette l’installazione anche a pali alternati (uno sì e uno no), garantendo comunque la rilevazione anche dei tentativi di intrusione più discreti, come utilizzando una scala appoggiata al palo senza sensore.

Semplicemente…

Prosegue il percorso di collaborazioni commerciali di GPS Standard in nord Africa, mercato in grande espansione nel quale la nostra azienda è presente da molti anni.

Abbiamo di recente stretto un accordo con un partner di primaria importanza in Algeria, per la messa a punto di progetti di sicurezza a tutela di impianti industriali nel settore energetico e di installazioni militari.

In questa nazione, la nostra azienda è già stata scelta in passato per la protezione di numerosi siti sensibili e le nostre tecnologie sono state installate integrando prodotti da tutta la nostra offerta insieme a quelli di fornitori partner: protezioni perimetrali, videosorveglianza, controllo accessi, software di gestione e centralizzazioni.

Negli anni il nostro team commerciale, supportato dal nostro sempre eccellente team tecnico, ha potuto stringere rapporti di lunga durata grazie ai quali i prodotti ad alta tecnologia della nostra azienda continuano ad essere un punto di riferimento laddove sono richiesti standard di sicurezza molto elevati.

Abbiamo pensato di condividere con voi qualche riflessione sulle api. Perché? Se ci seguite regolarmente sapete che il nostro reparto Ricerca & Sviluppo sta lavorando ad un nuovo progetto: BeeS, appunto.

Purtroppo, però, per adesso i colleghi R&D ancora non ci vogliono fornire altre informazioni su questo prodotto.

Abbiamo deciso, quindi, di provare a scoprire che cosa si nasconde dietro la scelta di un nome così particolare, andando a studiare proprio il piccolo insetto del quale il nuovo prodotto porta il nome.

Le api svolgono un ruolo fondamentale per la sopravvivenza del genere umano e, quindi, anche per la sua sicurezza e per la sua salute. Di seguito vi segnaliamo dieci curiosità su questo laborioso insetto. Chissà che tra queste non si nasconda qualche indizio legato al BeeS…

Nei mesi scorsi, GPS Standard ha lanciato sul mercato il nuovo PCPS220, innovativo cavo microfnico a variazione capacitiva. Il PCPS220 sostituisce il modello PCPS313, inserendosi a completamento della nostra gamma di prodotti perimetrali per la protezione di recinzioni ed è completamente compatibile con tutti gli analizzatori della famiglia CPS Plus.

Grazie a questo nuovo cavo, e alle altre novità presenti a catalogo per questo tipo di protezioni, un sistema CPS può essere oggi fornito con un risparmio fino al 40% rispetto alle vecchie configurazioni, perchè innovare per GPS Standard significa anche offrire prodotti migliori ad un prezzo più conveniente.

Per maggiori informazioni, CLICCATE QUI.

Continuate a seguirci per restare aggiornati sui nuovi lanci di prodotto previsti per il 2021.

“Si tratta - commenta Pietro Capula, fondatore e presidente di GPS Standard - di un riconoscimento importante e di un’opportunità per completare la gamma di sensoristica per esterno portando sul mercato italiano tutta la qualità dei prodotti TAKEX”.

Con oltre cinquant’anni di esperienza TAKEX è il principale produttore giapponese di sensoristica infrarosso per la rilevazione in ambiente esterno, con installazioni ai più alti livelli di organizzazioni militari e governative in tutto il mondo.

#sicurezza #security #securitymarket #sicurezzaperimetrale #perimetersecurity #TVCC #CCTV #videosorveglianza #videosurveillance