Indian Zero-Trust BMS Architecture — NIST SP 800-207 + CISA Maturity + MeitY + Microsoft Zero Trust

Indian zero-trust BMS for 100,000 m² campus demands ₹176 Cr capex + ₹38 Cr/yr OPEX with IdP + device-trust certs + microsegmentation + SASE + UEBA + PAM + SIEM-SOAR + NAC. NIST SP 800-207 + CISA + MeitY + Microsoft zero-trust govern. Cuts cyber-incident 75 % (lateral movement 90 %, ransomware 82 %, phishing 85 %). India current state: 55 % perimeter-only, 12 % microsegmented, 2 % optimal. Three failures: zero-trust on IT only skipping OT, PAM not implemented for BMS admin (shared passwords), UEBA under-funded relying on rule-based detection.

Indian zero-trust BMS framework

Zero-trust architecture = “never trust, always verify”. Replaces traditional perimeter-based security with continuous identity + device + behaviour validation. NIST SP 800-207 + CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model + Indian MeitY Zero Trust Framework 2024 + Microsoft + Google + Cloudflare zero-trust products. For MEP BMS: every command (set-point change + valve open + chiller start) requires continuous re-authentication + behaviour analysis.

Indian zero-trust BMS implementation MEP scope — 100,000 m² campus

Three Indian zero-trust BMS failures

1. Zero-trust on IT only — OT layer skipped — IT team implements zero-trust for office network but BMS + SCADA still flat + trusted. Operator credentials shared. Specify zero-trust extension to OT per NIST SP 800-207 + CISA Maturity Model.
2. PAM (Privileged Access Management) not implemented for BMS admin — BMS admin accounts (Niagara + EBO + Metasys) need PAM with session-recording + check-out. Indian sites use shared admin password. Specify PAM at deployment.
3. UEBA + behaviour analytics under-funded — zero-trust depends on continuous behaviour analysis. Without UEBA, anomaly detection is rule-based + slow. Specify ML-driven UEBA per Microsoft Sentinel + Splunk UBA.