Digital Twin Security and ISO 27001

Deploying an industrial digital twin raises questions among IT departments and security professionals that are entirely justified. When a facility’s physical structure, equipment locations, process documents, and maintenance history are brought together into a single digital view, the result is a body of data whose protection requires a considered approach. Digital twin security is not a feature to be added as an afterthought—it is the foundation of the service.

In this article, we walk through why industrial data attracts cyber threats, what facility data in a digital twin actually contains, how the ISO 27001 framework applies in this context, and what questions are worth asking before deployment.

Why industrial data is a particularly attractive target for cyber threats

Industrial facility data is sensitive on multiple levels simultaneously. It contains information about critical infrastructure, production processes, and asset locations in a way that is directly exploitable for competitive intelligence as well as for compromising physical security. Unlike consumer data, industrial data is often long-lived: a facility’s structure does not change quickly, so information acquired once retains its value for years.

Industrial IT and OT environments have also historically developed separately, leaving gaps in security architecture. A digital twin bridges these layers, which is an operational advantage but means, from a security standpoint, that protection must cover a broader scope than in traditional office systems. This is precisely why security in an industrial context is more demanding than in many other sectors.

What facility data in a digital twin contains

An industrial digital twin is not simply a 3D image of a facility. It combines geometric data—such as point clouds and CAD models—with operational information including equipment identifiers, P&ID diagrams, maintenance history, work orders, and documents. Together, these paint a more accurate picture of the facility’s current state than any single system could on its own.

In practice, this means the twin may hold information about pipeline routes, valve locations, ATEX zone boundaries, and maintenance intervals for critical equipment. Combined with integrations that can be made to systems such as SAP or IBM Maximo, the twin also reflects the state of maintenance in real time. The sensitivity of the data is therefore considerably greater than that of a standalone 3D model.

Facility data is also tied to individuals in the sense that access rights management determines who can see what. Role-based access control can restrict visibility by facility or area, but this requires that the access rights structure be carefully designed from the outset during the deployment phase.

The ISO 27001 framework in the context of an industrial digital twin

ISO/IEC 27001 is an international standard for information security management systems that defines requirements for the systematic management of an organization’s information security. It is not a technical specification but a framework covering risk management, processes, responsibilities, and continual improvement. In the context of an industrial digital twin, this means a service provider must be able to demonstrate how customer data is protected throughout its entire lifecycle.

The value of certification to a buyer is concrete: it means the service provider’s security practices have been audited by an independent party. Certification does not guarantee zero risk, but it demonstrates that processes exist, are followed, and are developed systematically. IT departments find it easier to approve a new service when certification reduces the need to conduct all assessments from scratch.

SolidComp is currently finalizing its ISO/IEC 27001 certification and communicates openly about the status. Certification has not yet been granted, but the process is underway and the security architecture has been built with certification requirements in mind. More information is available at ISO 27001 readiness development.

Cloud security vs. on-premises systems: a comparison from an industrial perspective

The choice between cloud and on-premises options is one of the most common questions IT departments raise before deploying a digital twin. Both have their justified place, and the right solution depends on the facility’s regulatory context, network policy, and risk tolerance.

Advantages and limitations of cloud services

A cloud environment enables scalable capacity, automatic updates, and centralized security management without the customer needing to maintain their own infrastructure. Reality Twin™ operates as an AWS-native service in an EU-based cloud, where data is isolated per customer. Encryption is applied both at rest and in transit, and logging along with an audit trail enables event traceability. GDPR compliance is built in.

The limitation of cloud services in industry is dependency on network connectivity, as well as the regulatory requirements of certain sectors or countries that may require data to remain in a specific physical location. In such cases, it is important that the service provider can demonstrate where data resides and offer flexibility in the choice of AWS region.

On-premises option for closed environments

In strictly regulated or network-isolated environments, an on-premises installation is a justified option. Reality Twin™ also supports local installation, and firewall whitelisting is possible. An EU co-funded project reinforces this development path. In an on-premises model, the customer’s IT department manages the infrastructure itself, which brings greater control but also greater responsibility for maintenance.

In practice, many industrial facilities end up with a hybrid model in which the most critical datasets are kept locally while a collaboration-oriented view operates in the cloud. This requires clear agreement on what data is shared and how.

What users say about using Reality Twin in practice

A user survey conducted by SolidComp in May 2026 provides a concrete picture of how Reality Twin performs in real working situations. The survey reached 40 respondents from the paper, board, mining, minerals, fertilizer, and chemical industries, as well as other heavy industrial environments. The results do not describe digital twin use at a general level, but specifically the day-to-day reality of complex, long-established production environments.

The single strongest finding relates to a reduction in physical site visits: 28 respondents cited it as a concrete benefit, and 22 out of 32 respondents said Reality Twin reduces the need to visit the site frequently or very frequently. This is an easily understood business case for all roles: engineering saves time, maintenance reduces investigative work, and from a safety perspective, a reduction in unnecessary site visits is also a positive outcome.

The second strong result is time savings. 25 respondents cited it as a concrete benefit. Among those who were able to estimate a typical time saving per use, the majority placed the saving at at least 15 minutes, with some estimating 30–60 minutes or even 1–2 hours per use. Even small time savings accumulate into significant gains when they recur across projects, maintenance tasks, and meetings.

The third key theme is site comprehension. 22 respondents indicated that Reality Twin makes it easier to understand the current state of a facility or space. This is also reflected in usage patterns: reviewing 3D models and the current state of the facility, as well as planning projects, investments, and layouts, both topped the list with 24 mentions each. From a security perspective, this is a significant observation: the more broadly the service is used in operational work, the more important it is that its security architecture is sound from the very beginning.

The user survey also showed that Reality Twin usage currently concentrates most strongly in engineering and project organizations. The maintenance potential clearly exists but has not yet become as widely established. The most requested new feature was document management integration, followed by shutdown and installation planning tools and maintenance system integration. These wishes indicate that customers want more from Reality Twin than a visual as-built environment: they want information tied to a physical location to be found within the same interface.

The average willingness to recommend score was 8.31/10, and calculated using NPS logic the result is positive. Users already experience the benefits, although performance, navigation, and information retrieval emerged as the most common areas for improvement. This is also an important observation from a security perspective: the wider the user base the service reaches, the more carefully access rights structures, role-based restrictions, and access management must be designed.

Practical security questions before deploying a digital twin

Before deployment, it is worth going through a set of concrete questions that help both in evaluating the service provider and in ensuring your own organization is ready.

• Authentication and access rights: Does the service support single sign-on (SSO) and integration with the organization’s Active Directory or Microsoft Entra ID? Is it possible to restrict role-based access rights by facility or area?
• Data location: Where is the data physically stored, and can the service provider demonstrate this with documentation? Can the region be changed if needed?
• Encryption: Is data encrypted both at rest and in transit? How is key management handled?
• Logging and auditability: Is an audit trail available for usage events? Who has access to the logs and under what conditions?
• Backups and recovery: How are backups managed, and what is the recovery time after a serious incident?
• Third-party partner access: How is access by contractors or other external parties restricted and managed?
• Certifications: Does the service provider hold ISO/IEC 27001 certification, or is the process underway? Is a technical information sheet available for the IT team’s evaluation?

These questions are not solely the concern of the IT department. Plant managers and maintenance managers should understand what kind of security architecture underpins the facility’s digital twin, because it affects how broadly and confidently the service can be used in operational work. Based on the user survey, Reality Twin usage naturally expands from engineering into maintenance, contractor guidance, and shared decision-making—and it is precisely this expansion that makes transparency in the security architecture increasingly important.

Transparency in security architecture is also a sign of a service provider’s maturity as a partner. If a service provider is unable to answer these questions or provide technical documentation, that is reason for further inquiry. Learn more about Reality Twin™ security and infrastructure solutions or the service as a whole before beginning the evaluation process.