Connected and Secured? Building the Missing Layer
Introducing two practical tools for planning and evaluating security in connected hardware.
Over the past few months, I’ve been expanding on parts of Tangibles with tools and frameworks that turn its ideas into something teams can actually use. This post introduces two of them—built for people designing connected hardware who need to make security decisions long before audits or compliance deadlines arrive.
Why These Tools Exist
These tools—one for planning and security requirement, the other for self audit— are built for product managers, engineering leads, and founders who still have to make real security judgments before security specialists chime in.
Hardware systems live in the field for years, sometimes decades. Yet their defenses are often assembled from partial knowledge, reused assumptions, and late‑stage reviews. These tools are designed for that reality—translating formal standards into something practical that product teams can use during planning and iteration.
The IoT Security Requirements Generator
The Requirements Generator supports the planning phase. It takes a product’s deployment context and technical profile and turns it into a set of PRD‑ready security requirements mapped to major frameworks: ETSI EN 303 645, the EU Cyber Resilience Act, UK PSTI, GDPR, CIS v8, and IEC 62443‑4‑2 for industrial systems.
https://tangibles-book.com/tools/iot-security-requirements
The goal isn’t paperwork, but sharper early decisions. The generator prompts teams to define how device identities are managed, how updates are delivered, and what assumptions exist around connectivity and data handling. The result is a grounded baseline before those standards become contractual requirements.
The IoT Security Scorecard
The Scorecard tackles the assessment side. It’s an audit‑style questionnaire based on the same standards, designed to show where intentions and implementations diverge.
https://tangibles-book.com/tools/iot-security-scorecard
It doesn’t certify compliance—it reveals gaps. The scorecard surfaces missing controls and, more often, missing ownership: who’s responsible for updates, monitoring, vulnerability handling, and failure response. Those questions alone tend to bring valuable clarity.
A Practical Security Loop
Used together, the tools form a working cycle:
The generator defines intent.
The scorecard measures execution.
The findings feed the next version.
This loop keeps security part of the product rhythm, not an afterthought. For hardware, where post‑deployment changes are costly and slow, that shift in timing can make all the difference.
Bridging the Gap
These tools don’t replace standards, auditors, or seasoned security engineers. They translate those disciplines into everyday product practice—where most hardware teams actually need the help.
They’re meant to close the missing layer between “we know security matters” and “we’ve built it in from day one.”
Register to the Early Access List of Tangibles
Remain in the loop. Learn of release time, get discount offer, and early glimpses into the digital content accompanying the print edition—before anyone else does.