Industrial Security Special Focus October/November 2026 www.pwemag.co.uk Plant & Works Engineering | 35 2025 noted that in 2024 “there was a sharp increase in phishing and social engineering attacks” and that “Generative AI is augmenting cybercriminal capabilities”. These messages often pass through standard filtering and reach staff who may not expect them. Automated tools can support the screening process, although their outputs need human review to avoid misjudging messages that share traits with legitimate correspondence. As these attempts grow more polished, organisations benefit from awareness training and monitoring practices that keep pace with the evolving character of these attacks. AI-driven intrusion methods continue to advance, yet organisations can adjust their thinking to meet this change. Traditional tools still hold value, although their protective strength relies on how they sit alongside realtime monitoring and the routine maintenance that keeps systems predictable enough for practitioners to read them with confidence. For engineering-led organisations, maintaining this balance is increasingly part of operational resilience rather than a standalone IT concern. For further information please visit: https://www.oryxalign.com/cyber that routine incidents still carry weight for organisations across the UK. They also reveal a shift in how attacks unfold. Automated probing shortens the gap between an initial scan and a serious attempt to breach a system, which forces incidents to gather pace and draws heavily on operational teams. As this tempo increases, older tools struggle to keep their footing and leave practitioners working with less room to anticipate the next stage of an intrusion. For manufacturing and engineering teams, this compression of response time can sit alongside production demands and safety considerations, adding further strain during active incidents. AI reshapes monitoring A further challenge appears once AI begins to influence how organisations monitor their environments. Automated tools now scan networks and endpoints for unusual activity, although their outputs often need human context before teams can trust what they see. These systems can present signals that sit close to normal operational patterns, which makes it harder for practitioners to judge whether a change in behaviour deserves closer attention. Attackers also use AI to produce misleading indicators that mimic trusted activity or disguise a malicious sequence inside ordinary network traffic, which makes early recognition far harder for automated systems. Without oversight, teams risk either ignoring subtle signals or chasing false leads that drain resources during busy periods. Building stronger visibility Security therefore rests on a blend of clear visibility and confident human judgement, supported by processes that help teams act without hesitation. UK engineering and manufacturing organisations benefit from monitoring that builds a steady picture of system behaviour under routine conditions. Lifecycle planning also supports this picture by keeping endpoints current and reducing the presence of devices that sit outside managed oversight. These adjustments give teams a steadier view of network activity, even as automated tooling produces a heavy flow of alerts. With a clearer picture in front of them, practitioners can step into developing incidents earlier and guide responses with more confidence. Sharper social threats Another pressure on security teams comes from the steady rise in social-engineering attempts. Global Cybersecurity Outlook
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ0NzM=