Menu
CYBERSECURITY NEWS

Manufacturing Cybersecurity: Downtime Risks and IT/OT Defenses

Uday Patil Aug 2, 2026 3 min read 316 views
Manufacturing Cybersecurity: Downtime Risks and IT/OT Defenses

Editorial correction — October 16, 2026: Removed an unsupported 250% increase, unverified Mercedes incident mechanics and unsupported details about cables being cut and robotics being corrupted at fairlife. The confirmed fairlife event occurred in July, not the first two quarters of 2026.

Unplanned downtime costs vary by industry and facility. Siemens’ 2024 research reported approximately $2.3 million per hour for automotive manufacturing; this is not a universal factory average or a cyberattack-specific loss estimate.

What is confirmed about fairlife

In its July 16, 2026 announcement, Coca-Cola reported unauthorized access to some fairlife systems, including production-related systems, in connection with ransomware. US production was temporarily suspended; Canadian production was not affected at that time. The company said product quality and safety were not impacted.

That disclosure does not establish that attackers encrypted PLCs, damaged blending equipment or caused engineers to sever control cables. Production can stop because supporting systems are unavailable or because operators isolate systems during response. A shutdown alone does not reveal the technical cause.

Why IT and OT require coordinated security

Operational technology controls physical processes. NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3 addresses its particular performance, reliability and safety requirements. Security changes should be reviewed with plant engineers and equipment vendors, tested where feasible and deployed through approved change procedures.

Legacy systems, remote maintenance and connections between business and production networks can create exposure. Their presence does not prove compromise. Inventory actual assets and communication paths before selecting controls.

Assess remote access and network boundaries

Document who can connect, to which systems, for what purpose and for how long. Use individual accounts, least privilege, strong authentication where supported and monitored access. Remove unnecessary access and agree how emergency vendor support will work.

Segment IT and OT according to operational risk and necessary communication flows. Firewalls, controlled gateways and, where appropriate, unidirectional devices are options. The Purdue model is not a universal instruction to physically air-gap every layer. Do not abruptly disconnect operational or safety-critical equipment based on this general guide.

Monitoring and system hardening

Establish a baseline of authorized devices, software and engineering changes. Evaluate passive monitoring where active scanning could affect equipment, but recognize that monitoring is not proof that a system is safe. Coordinate detection rules and response actions with operations.

Test endpoint controls, patches and application allowlisting for compatibility before deployment. Some OT devices cannot support conventional agents; others can. Avoid treating every HMI or controller as technically identical.

Recovery planning

Maintain protected backups of relevant configurations, controller logic, applications and recovery documentation. Restrict backup access and test restoration under safe conditions. Offline or immutable copies can improve resilience, but do not guarantee immediate recovery.

Define who may isolate systems, stop production, contact vendors and authorize restoration. Preserve evidence where safe, assess exposed credentials and coordinate replacement or rotation without creating uncontrolled process changes. Actual incident decisions belong to qualified responders and plant operations.

Estimate the impact for your facility

Build a scenario using production throughput, restart time, scrap, overtime, contractual exposure and recovery expenses. Separate revenue delayed from revenue permanently lost. Use industry estimates as context, not as your own guaranteed hourly loss.

Related coverage

These links provide related coverage, not independent evidence for the claims discussed above.

Uday Patil
About The Author

Uday Patil

Uday Patil is a Cybersecurity Researcher, DevSecOps Engineer, and the Founder of CyberUpdates365. Specializing in Threat Intelligence and Zero-Day vulnerability analysis, Uday is dedicated to breaking down complex cyber threats into actionable insights. His mission is to empower developers, security teams, and aspiring tech talent with rapid alerts, practical guidance, and career mentorship.