Laboratories depend on more connected technology than many people realize. A laptop is obviously a computer, but a network-connected centrifuge, freezer, GC-MS, sequencer, microscope, or environmental monitoring system may not be viewed the same way. From a cybersecurity standpoint, however, these systems can introduce many of the same vulnerabilities as traditional computers.
That creates a distinct challenge for laboratories. Instruments may run on aging operating systems, rely on vendor-managed software, require remote access, or remain in service long after standard IT equipment would have been replaced.
For lab leaders, cybersecurity therefore extends beyond protecting standard office computers and email accounts. It means understanding which laboratory systems and data are most critical, where vulnerabilities may exist, and how the lab should work with IT and security teams to help reduce risk and prepare for disruptions.
Why laboratories are at risk
Labs are attractive targets for cybercriminals. First, research data can be extremely valuable. In many organizations, the data in the lab is literally the business. Think about all the intellectual property, proprietary methods, product recipes, clinical trial data, and patient information that competitors or foreign governments would love to see. Second, labs often cannot tolerate downtime. If a ransomware attack shuts down a normal office file server, that is bad. If it shuts down an instrument-control system in the middle of a time-sensitive experiment, destroys chain-of-custody records, or prevents access to environmental controls protecting irreplaceable samples, that can be catastrophic.
This is not just an IT issue. It is a business continuity issue, a quality issue, a compliance issue, and in some cases, a patient safety issue, which could conceivably become a life safety issue.
Where cyber threats can enter the lab
The usual cyber threats are well known to the IT industry. Ransomware is still one of the big ones. They start via several attack vectors: A lab employee unknowingly clicks on a malicious email attachment. A remote-access system has a weak password. An internet-facing server is missing a patch. The attacker gets in, spreads laterally on the network, steals data, encrypts files, and demands payment to undo the damage they have done. This happens every day.
Email compromise is another major problem. Lab staff are busy. Researchers are accustomed to opening spreadsheets, documents, vendor quotes, and instrument reports. This regularity makes them attractive targets for cybercriminals to send fake invoices, document shares, journal notices, or password-reset emails. Cybercriminals do not need to hack your firewall if they can convince one person to hand them the keys.
Data theft is also a serious concern. Some attackers want money today. Others want research, formulas, methods, source data, unpublished results, or patient data. A ransomware attack gets attention because systems stop working. Data theft can be quieter and, in some cases, more damaging over the long term.
Data integrity presents another potential risk. A cyberattack does not always have to shut down a system or steal information to cause harm. If an attacker can alter data without detection, the lab may be left relying on information that can no longer be trusted.
Recent cybersecurity research illustrates the concern. In 2026, researchers identified a vulnerability in software used to analyze forensic DNA evidence that allowed them to modify digital DNA files without the changes being detected. There were no known instances of the vulnerability being exploited, but the finding demonstrates why laboratories should consider not only whether their data can be accessed or stolen, but also whether unauthorized changes could be identified. For labs whose decisions depend on the integrity of instrument data, records, and results, that distinction is important.
Lab Quality Management Certificate
The Lab Quality Management certificate is more than training—it’s a professional advantage.
Gain critical skills and IACET-approved CEUs that make a measurable difference.
None of this means labs are careless. It means labs have constraints that normal cybersecurity checklists often ignore.
Legacy systems create a different challenge
A 12-year-old instrument running a 12-year-old operating system may still produce perfectly good scientific results. From the lab’s perspective, replacing it may be wildly expensive and operationally unnecessary. From the cybercriminal’s perspective, it may be a soft target with a network cable attached to it. Both can be true at the same time. Systems like these must be somehow hardened from attack. This can be accomplished by removing them from the network or putting them into a hardened network (often called a SCADA environment).
Steps for lab managers
Know what systems and data you depend on
Start with an inventory. This is boring. It is also foundational. You must know what you’re protecting before you can adequately protect it. Build a list of instruments, software platforms, workstations, servers, cloud services, and vendor-managed systems. For each one, identify who owns it, what it does, what data it stores, what operating system it uses, whether it connects to the network, whether vendors can access it remotely, and what happens if it is unavailable.
Interested in lab leadership?
Register for a FREE Lab Manager account to subscribe to our Lab Leadership Digest Newsletter.
Subscribe for Free
The “unavailable” question is often the most important one. If losing a system means inconvenience, that is one level of concern. If losing it means patient care is delayed, a trial is compromised, regulatory records are unavailable, samples are destroyed, or the lab cannot generate revenue, that is a very different conversation.
Strengthen access and authentication
Next, tighten access controls. Shared lab accounts should be avoided. When they cannot be eliminated, understand the risk and compensate for it with things like seriously hard-to-guess passwords and systems to monitor use of those accounts. Use named accounts for people who need access. Remove former employees promptly. Do not give every scientist local administrator privileges because one application needed it in 2016 and no one revisited the decision. That is how temporary exceptions become permanent vulnerabilities.
Multi-factor authentication (MFA) should be used for email accounts, remote access into your network (such as VPNs), cloud systems, administrative accounts, and any system that contains sensitive data. Email deserves special attention. Many cyberattacks start in the inbox, and many wire fraud schemes succeed because attackers take over an email account and quietly watch how the organization works. If an attacker controls the email account of someone who can approve payments, the attacker may not need ransomware. They can just outright steal money.
Plan for recovery before systems go down
Backups matter. Not theoretical backups. Real backups. Tested backups. Backups that ransomware cannot delete. Labs should know what data needs to be restored first, how long restoration will take, and whether instrument configurations, methods, audit trails, and raw data are included. A backup that has never been restored is little more than hope, and hope rarely influences real-world outcomes.
Review vendor access and system vulnerabilities
Vendor access needs scrutiny. Vendors often need remote access to support instruments and software. That is understandable. It is also risky. Lab managers should know which vendors have remote access, insist that MFA is required, insist that access is only enabled when needed, and set up a system to log such activity. “The vendor set it up before I started working here” is not a security model.
Patching and updates need to be done at least monthly, especially if a device in question runs Microsoft Windows, as Microsoft releases security patches on the second Tuesday of every month. Your IT team may want to centralize this patching, but they may request the lab technician’s assistance for non-standard machines. Some systems can be patched automatically. Others require testing, validation, or vendor approval. That is fine, but delayed patching is not acceptable for networked systems. For systems that cannot be patched, the IT team can put it in a SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) environment. Generally speaking, instrument workstations should not have total Internet access, as opening malicious emails or going to infected websites are common ways that computer compromises occur. If an instrument only needs to talk to one server, do not let it talk to everything.
Train staff for threats they may actually encounter
Staff training should be specific to laboratory environments, and your IT team can help keep your lab safe by sending simulated phishing emails that look like their world: fake vendor support emails, fake shared research files, fraudulent conference invitations, bogus shipping notices for reagents, phishing emails pretending to be from a principal investigator, etc. Training should also make it clear that reporting something suspicious is not an admission of failure. The sooner IT knows, the better the outcome is likely to be.
Define your response before an incident occurs
Finally, labs need an incident response plan before an incident actually happens. Who decides whether to disconnect an instrument from the network? Who calls IT? Who calls legal? When is your insurance company notified? Who talks to the vendor? Who determines whether regulated data may have been exposed? Who decides whether testing, production, or research work can continue? Trying to answer these questions during a cyberattack is like trying to write a fire evacuation plan while the building is filling with smoke.
A practical path forward is not perfection, as perfect cybersecurity does not exist. The goal is to be “Secure Enough” that a realistic cyber incident does not shut down the lab, destroy data, compromise research, expose sensitive information, or leave everyone staring at each other wondering who is supposed to make the next decision.
Cybersecurity is rarely just a technology problem. In laboratories, it is very much a leadership problem. Lab leaders do not need to become cybersecurity experts. They do need to ask better questions, know where the critical data sits, understand which systems can break the lab if they fail, and make sure the right people are planning together before cybercriminals force the issue.
Because cybercriminals do not care that your freezer is full, your assay is halfway complete, your grant deadline is next week, or your instrument vendor stopped supporting that operating system three years ago. They just care whether they can get in.
