Abstract
Building automation systems govern heating, ventilation, lighting, shading, and access
in modern facilities. They grew out of a tradition of environmental control in which
security was a side issue at best, and they are now routinely joined to IP networks, to
remote service access, and to cloud analytics, while the trust model of their field
protocols has not kept pace. The consequence of a successful attack is not confined to
data. It is a change in the physical state of the building and in the conditions of its
safe use. This paper reviews the cyber-physical attack surface of building automation
across the management, automation, and field levels, compares the security properties of
four dominant field protocols and of the secure protocol variants now published, and
asks which compensating controls reach the level where they are needed. The method is a
narrative review of peer-reviewed literature, protocol standards, European and Polish
law, and primary vulnerability and incident records, selected against stated criteria
and weighted toward the period 2023 to 2026. A widely repeated incident case is
re-examined against its primary source, which does not support the account that
circulates. The review finds that published evidence is dominated by vulnerability
demonstrations rather than documented operational harm; that secure variants of the
major protocols now exist, so the binding constraint has moved from protocol design to
the installed base; and that European building law is placing automation into a large
part of the non-residential stock on a fixed schedule while addressing its cybersecurity
in a single clause. No value reported here comes from the author's own measurement.
Comparative assessments are expert judgments calibrated against documented events and
are labeled as such.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
