The danger of not updating systems in laboratories

Digital transformation in laboratories has brought with it a growing dependence on computerized control systems, analytical software, LIMS platforms, scientific IoT infrastructure, and next-generation connected instruments. However, despite this progress, it is still common to find critical equipment operating with obsolete operating systems, outdated firmware, or applications that stopped receiving manufacturer support years ago.

These types of environments, very common in clinical, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, or industrial quality-control laboratories, pose a high cybersecurity risk that can directly impact data integrity, the validity of experimental results, and production continuity.

Risks of operating without updating systems in a laboratory

The false sense of isolation in scientific environments

For years, it was assumed that laboratories were sufficiently isolated and technically specialized environments to avoid becoming a priority target for cybercriminals. However, this perception is no longer valid. Connectivity has steadily increased: instrumentation systems use internal networks to communicate with the LIMS, analytical equipment sends data to the central server, vendors perform remote maintenance, and technicians use mobile devices or laptops to monitor processes.

Even machines that are not supposed to have a direct connection to the Internet often rely on manual updates via USB, data transfers from network-connected devices, or interactions with corporate systems. Under these conditions, any unpatched vulnerability can become an entry point for an attacker, causing far greater damage than what an apparently “isolated” system would suggest.

Technical obsolescence as an expanded attack surface

Many scientific instruments have life cycles far longer than the operating systems they run on. It is common to find equipment operating on Windows XP Embedded, Windows 7, old Linux distributions, or proprietary software that has not been updated in a decade. The problem is not just the age of the system, but the absence of security patches that fix already documented and easily exploitable vulnerabilities.

The availability of public exploits, combined with automated tools capable of identifying outdated systems in seconds, exponentially increases the risk. For an attacker, compromising an unsupported laboratory device can be as simple as letting vulnerability-scanning tools do the work.

Operational, scientific and economic consequences of not updating

Interruptions to operations and loss of continuity

Failing to update systems makes laboratory environments potential victims of malware, ransomware, or denial-of-service attacks. In settings where processes may be continuous, samples perishable, or timing critical, any interruption leads to significant financial losses and disruptions in staff and equipment scheduling.

An attack affecting a control system may force ongoing experiments to be halted, interrupt clinical analyses during working hours, or shut down production lines that depend on strict temperature, pressure, or flow conditions. Recovery may take days or even weeks, especially if the laboratory needs to restore complex configurations or re-validate the system to meet regulatory requirements.

Unintentional manipulation of critical parameters

One of the most serious, and least visible, risks is the potential manipulation of experimental parameters without personnel noticing. A cybercriminal with access to an outdated system can alter PCR equipment settings, modify an incubator’s heating curve, unbalance a centrifuge, or change the calibration of a spectrophotometer.

These changes may not be detected immediately, yet they compromise the validity of results. In clinical laboratories, this can mean incorrect diagnoses; in pharmaceutical environments, entire batches must be discarded; in research, whole projects may be affected by inconsistent data.

The damage is not always evident and can persist for weeks until staff begin to identify unusual patterns in the results.

Leakage of sensitive data and theft of intellectual property

Outdated systems make it easier for unauthorized actors to gain access and extract highly valuable scientific information, from research results to regulatory documentation, process blueprints, analytical algorithms, or patients’ personal data.

In sectors such as pharmaceuticals or biotechnology, where intellectual property is a strategic asset, this kind of data loss can have critical consequences. Exploiting known vulnerabilities in unpatched systems is often the most common method used to infiltrate a laboratory without raising suspicion, especially when the attacker moves laterally from another part of the corporate network.

Most Common Attack Vectors in Unpatched Systems

Insecure remote maintenance

Many manufacturers provide remote support to inspect scientific equipment. When these access points are not monitored or do not use modern encrypted channels, they become highly attractive entry points for attackers. An outdated system with open remote services is especially vulnerable, as available exploits are often designed specifically for older versions.

Data exchange via USB devices

The use of removable devices is common in laboratories that aim to keep certain systems disconnected from the network. However, this practice introduces a significant risk: any prior infection on a support computer can spread to critical equipment, where unpatched vulnerabilities allow immediate execution.

Cyberattacks using physical media are particularly dangerous on older instrumentation, as many systems lack modern execution control mechanisms or antivirus protection.

Lateral movement within the corporate network

Even if a laboratory is not the initial target, an attacker who compromises an administrative computer or organizational server can move through the network in search of vulnerable systems. Unpatched equipment is often the first to fall, as it typically lacks contemporary protection mechanisms.

This type of intrusion allows attackers to take control of laboratory systems without triggering alerts, exploiting the implicit trust between devices on the same network.

Regulatory and compliance risks

Audits and standards requiring updated systems

Laboratories operating under ISO 17025, GMP/GxP, GLP, GDPR, or other regulations must maintain strict control over their digital infrastructure. The presence of obsolete, unsupported systems constitutes a direct noncompliance, as it leaves the door open to data manipulation, loss of document integrity, and critical operational failures.

During audits, unpatched equipment or systems without maintenance traceability are often flagged as an unacceptable risk, especially if they are involved in processes affecting product quality or clinical results.

Impact on traceability and the integrity of electronic records

A core pillar of laboratory regulation is proper data management: who generates it, how it is stored, who modifies it, and under what conditions. If a vulnerable system allows an attacker, or even an unauthorized internal user, to alter data without leaving a trace, the chain of custody is compromised.

This directly undermines the credibility of results and can lead to consequences ranging from product recalls to the complete repetition of studies.

Strategies to reduce risk without affecting scientific operations

Accurate inventory and risk classification

Risk management begins with a thorough inventory. It is essential to document which equipment is outdated, what functions it performs, its dependencies on other infrastructure, and the real impact of an interruption or security breach.

This analysis allows laboratories to prioritize actions without compromising daily operations.

Segmentation and isolation of obsolete systems

When critical equipment cannot be updated, the appropriate strategy is isolation. Using dedicated VLANs, internal firewalls, and strict communication rules, the interaction of vulnerable systems with the rest of the network is limited.

This approach greatly reduces the attack surface by preventing attackers from reaching the device through indirect paths.

Policy of controlled and validated updates

In many laboratories, especially those under regulatory oversight, updates must go through validation processes to ensure they do not affect results. This involves creating test environments, documenting changes, and coordinating updates with manufacturers.

Although complex, this procedure is essential to ensure security without compromising scientific validity.

Compensatory controls when updates are not possible

When an update is technically impossible or would break equipment certification, alternative measures should be implemented: system integrity monitoring, software whitelisting, physical port control, data encryption, and strengthened authentication.

While these controls do not replace updates, they significantly reduce the system’s exposure.

Long-term technology renewal plan

Finally, it is advisable to establish a gradual replacement plan for unsupported systems. Scientific equipment often has long life cycles, but its IT infrastructure does not. A phased renewal strategy prevents laboratories from relying on obsolete systems that pose an increasing risk over time.

Outdated control systems in laboratories represent a real and growing threat that can compromise scientific integrity, analytical results, data security, and operational continuity. While updating or replacing critical equipment may seem complex or costly, the risks of maintaining obsolete systems are exponentially higher.

A laboratory that takes proactive cybersecurity measures not only protects its information and operations but also strengthens its competitive position in an increasingly demanding scientific environment.