Connect with us

Non classé

The Critical Role of Provenance in Cybersecurity and Supply Chains

Published

on

The Critical Role Of Provenance In Cybersecurity And Supply Chains

The Power Inverter Kill Switch Story Underlines The Importance Of Provenance in Cybersecurity and the Supply Chain

Do you really know what your production assets contain?

If you’ve ever bought antiques, you’re probably familiar with the concept of provenance. I have relatives that own a dresser that was gifted from George Washington to a family friend when he was a lieutenant in the colonial army. How do we know this? Because of the authenticated documentation that came with the dresser proving its origin. This is provenance – proving and documenting where something came from, what it contains, and the path it took before it wound up in your possession.

Heavy assets in industrial automation are a lot more complex than antiques, and the stakes are a lot higher, as we saw recently with the story about cellular powered kill switches found in Chinese manufactured power inverters used in solar and wind farms. In addition to being used around the world for renewable power applications, these inverters are also used in batteries, heat pumps, EV chargers, and other assets.

It’s typical for these products to have remote access capabilities, but these connections are normally handled through firewalls. You may have read the story about Chinese manufactured cranes that have remote connectivity capabilities but are largely unsecured. Many end users were not even aware of these remote communication capabilities, or if they were, they were improperly secured. If your assets come with features and functions that present a potential cybersecurity risk to your enterprise and you don’t address it or are not aware of it even though it is documented, that’s ultimately your responsibility, not the vendor’s.

The Problem of Rogue Components

It’s not always obvious what all the components are in an asset, be they hardware or software. The more complex the asset, the more complicated the issue becomes. In the case of the power inverters, the communication devices were undocumented, and asset owners did not even know they were there. The devices were found by a US-based team of experts whose job was to strip these assets down and identify their components. According to the Reuters article referenced in the above link, the “rogue components provide additional, undocumented communication channels that could allow firewalls to be circumvented remotely, with potentially catastrophic consequences.”

What is Provenance in Cybersecurity?

In the world of cybersecurity, provenance is more than just the source of origin. According to NIST, provenance is “The chronology of the origin, development, ownership, location, and changes to a system or system component and associated data. It may also include personnel and processes used to interact with or make modifications to the system, component, or associated data.” So, it’s more than just where the product came from, it includes all the associated data about what the asset or “component” contains from both a hardware and software standpoint.

Large Power Transformers In a Storage Yard: Source: IEEE SpectrumSBOMs: What’s in Your Software?

The concept of software bills of materials (SBOM) has emerged as an important element of cybersecurity. In simple terms it contains the details and supply chain relationships of various components used in building software. Those who produce, purchase, and operate software use it to improve their understanding of what components are in the systems. This in turn has multiple benefits, most notably the potential to track known and newly emerged vulnerabilities and risks. This concept applies to all systems, including those used for manufacturing operations and control.

SBOMs are becoming increasingly mandated in new regulations across a wide range of industries. Thee White House’s 2021 Executive Order on Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity mandated that federal agencies receive SBOMs for software they purchase. The EU’s Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) requires manufacturers of digital products sold in the EU to produce a top-level SBOM.

HBOMs: What’s in Your Hardware?

Unfortunately, SBOMs don’t do much to identify the various hardware components in an asset or system and where they come from. For that, you need an HBOM or hardware bill of materials, which should provide a detailed inventory of the hardware components included in an asset or system. CISA has its own Hardware Bill of Materials Framework for Supply Chain risk Management that you can review here and download.

HBOMs are relevant to any hardware asset, from a DCS controller or a field device like a pressure transmitter all the way up to large transformers. The larger and more complex the asset is, the more important it is to have a complete HBOM and SBOM. Take the example of large power transformers (LPTs), which again are largely sourced from China, are often custom built, and contain many hardware and software components. Many times, we don’t even know what’s in these large assets until we completely tear them down. A Chinese power transformer was sent to Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) for inspection in 2020, but even those results are classified.

End Users Need to Take Supply Chain Cybersecurity Seriously

SBOMs and HBOMs are all part of the larger issue of supply chain cybersecurity. Compiling an accurate inventory of installed systems has long been considered as one of the first steps in a cybersecurity program. Simply identifying such assets is no longer sufficient. Potential supply chain related risks can only be addressed if the provenance of all components in those assets is known. When assessing or procuring software systems or hardware it is very important to ask the supplier to list the components in the product. This may take the form of a software or hardware bill of material, but such a formal presentation may not be necessary. If the supplier is unwilling or unable to provide this information, then this should be considered when making buying choices.

Other aspects of supply chain cybersecurity include evaluating the cybersecurity posture of your software and service partners. The importance of this was shown in the SolarWinds attack. End users are increasingly reliant on their technology and service partners to keep things running, but if your partners have poor cyber resilience, it can and will directly affect your operations at some point.

The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provides guidance for supply chain cybersecurity in the form of a special publication titled “Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management Practices for Systems and Organizations.” This document describes how to identify, assess, and respond to cybersecurity risks throughout the supply chain at all levels of an organization. It offers key practices for organizations to adopt as they develop their capability to manage cybersecurity risks within and across their supply chains.

The post The Critical Role of Provenance in Cybersecurity and Supply Chains appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

India–U.S. Trade Announcement Creates Strategic Options, Not Executable Change

Published

on

By

India–u.s. Trade Announcement Creates Strategic Options, Not Executable Change

The announcement by Donald Trump and Narendra Modi of an India–U.S. “trade deal” has drawn immediate attention from global markets. From a supply chain and logistics perspective, however, the more important observation is not the scale of the claims, but the lack of formal detail required for execution.

At this stage, what exists is a political statement rather than a completed trade agreement. For companies managing sourcing, manufacturing, transportation, and compliance across India–U.S. trade lanes, uncertainty remains the defining condition.

What Has Been Announced So Far

Based on public statements from the U.S. administration and reporting by CNBC and Al Jazeera, several points have been asserted:

U.S. tariffs on Indian goods would be reduced from an effective 50 percent to 18 percent

India would reduce tariffs and non tariff barriers on U.S. goods, potentially to zero

India would stop purchasing Russian oil and increase energy purchases from the United States

India would significantly increase purchases of U.S. goods across energy, agriculture, technology, and industrial sectors

Statements from the Indian government have been more limited. New Delhi confirmed that U.S. tariffs on Indian exports would be reduced to 18 percent, but it did not publicly confirm commitments related to Russian oil, agricultural market access, or large scale procurement from U.S. suppliers.

This divergence matters. In supply chain planning, commitments only become relevant when they are documented, scoped, and enforceable.

Why This Is Not Yet a Trade Agreement

From an operational standpoint, the announcement lacks several elements required to support planning and execution:

No published tariff schedules by HS code

No clarification on rules of origin

No definition of non tariff barrier reductions

No implementation timelines

No enforcement or dispute resolution mechanisms

Without these components, companies cannot reliably model landed cost, supplier risk, or network design changes.

By comparison, India’s recently announced trade agreement with the European Union includes detailed provisions covering market access, regulatory alignment, and investment protections. Those provisions are what allow supply chain leaders to translate trade policy into operational decisions. The U.S. announcement does not yet meet that threshold.

Implications for Supply Chains

Tariff Reduction Could Be Material if Formalized

An 18 percent tariff rate would improve India’s competitive position relative to regional peers such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. If implemented and sustained, this could support incremental sourcing from India in sectors such as textiles, pharmaceuticals, and light manufacturing.

For now, however, this remains a scenario rather than a planning assumption.

Energy Commitments Are the Largest Unknown

The claim that India would halt purchases of Russian oil has significant implications across energy, chemical, and manufacturing supply chains. Russian crude has been a key input for Indian refineries and downstream industrial production.

A shift away from that supply would affect energy input costs, tanker routing, port utilization, and U.S.–India crude and LNG trade volumes. None of these impacts can be assessed with confidence without confirmation from Indian regulators and implementing agencies.

Agriculture Remains Politically and Operationally Sensitive

U.S. officials have suggested expanded access for American agricultural exports. Historically, agriculture has been one of the most protected and politically sensitive sectors in India.

Any meaningful liberalization would raise questions around cold chain capacity, port infrastructure, domestic political resistance, and regulatory compliance. These factors introduce execution risk that supply chain leaders should consider carefully.

Compliance and Digital Trade Issues Are Unresolved

Several areas remain undefined:

Whether India will adjust pharmaceutical patent protections

Whether U.S. technology firms will receive exemptions from digital services taxes

Whether labor and environmental standards will be linked to market access

Each of these issues influences sourcing strategies, contract terms, and long term cost structures.

Practical Guidance for Supply Chain Leaders

Until formal documentation is released, a measured approach is warranted:

Avoid making structural network changes based on political announcements

Model tariff exposure using multiple scenarios rather than a single assumed outcome

Monitor customs and regulatory guidance rather than headline statements

Assess exposure to potential energy cost changes in Indian operations

Track implementation of the India–EU agreement as a near term reference point

Bottom Line

This announcement suggests a potential shift in the direction of India–U.S. trade relations, but it does not yet provide the clarity required for operational decision making.

For now, it creates strategic optionality rather than executable change.

Until tariff schedules, regulatory commitments, and enforcement mechanisms are formally published, supply chain and logistics leaders should treat this development as informational rather than actionable. In trade, execution begins only when the documentation exists.

The post India–U.S. Trade Announcement Creates Strategic Options, Not Executable Change appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Winter weather challenges, trade deals and more tariff threats – February 3, 2026 Update

Published

on

By

Winter weather challenges, trade deals and more tariff threats – February 3, 2026 Update

Discover Freightos Enterprise

Published: February 3, 2026

Blog

Weekly highlights

Ocean rates – Freightos Baltic Index

Asia-US West Coast prices (FBX01 Weekly) decreased 10% to $2,418/FEU.

Asia-US East Coast prices (FBX03 Weekly) decreased 2% to $3,859/FEU.

Asia-N. Europe prices (FBX11 Weekly) decreased 5% to $2,779/FEU.

Asia-Mediterranean prices(FBX13 Weekly) decreased 5% to $4,179/FEU.

Air rates – Freightos Air Index

China – N. America weekly prices increased 8% to $6.74/kg.

China – N. Europe weekly prices decreased 4% to $3.44/kg.

N. Europe – N. America weekly prices increased 10% to $2.53/kg.

Analysis

Winter weather is complicating logistics on both sides of the Atlantic. Affected areas in the US, especially the southeast and southern midwest are still recovering from last week’s major storm and cold.

Storms in the North Atlantic slowed vessel traffic and disrupted or shutdown operations at several container ports across Western Europe and into the Mediterranean late last week. Transits resumed and West Med ports restarted operations earlier this week, but the disruptions have already caused significant delays, and weather is expected to worsen again mid-week.

The resulting delays and disruptions could increase congestion levels at N. Europe ports, but ocean rates from Asia to both N. Europe and the Mediterranean nonetheless dipped 5% last week as the pre-Lunar New Year rush comes to an end. Daily rates this week are sliding further with prices to N. Europe now down to about $2,600/FEU and $3,800/FEU to the Mediterranean – from respective highs of $3,000/FEU and $4,900/FEU in January.

Transpacific rates likewise slipped last week as LNY nears, with West Coast prices easing 10% to about $2,400/FEU and East Coast rates down 5% to $3,850/FEU. West Coast daily prices have continued to slide so far this week, with rates dropping to almost $1,900/FEU as of Monday, a level last seen in mid-December.

Prices across these lanes are significantly lower than this time last year due partly to fleet growth. ONE identified overcapacity as one driver of Q3 losses last year, with lower volumes due to trade war frontloading the other culprit.

And trade war uncertainty has persisted into 2026.

India – US container volumes have slumped since August when the US introduced 50% tariffs on many Indian exports. Just this week though, the US and India announced a breakthrough in negotiations that will lower tariffs to 18% in exchange for a reduction in India’s Russian oil purchases among other commitments. President Trump has yet to sign an executive order lowering tariffs, and the sides have not released details of the agreement, but once implemented, container demand is expected to rebound on this lane.

Recent steps in the other direction include Trump issuing an executive order that enables the US to impose tariffs on countries that sell oil to Cuba, and threatening tariffs and other punitive steps targeting Canada’s aviation manufacturing.

The recent volatility of and increasing barriers to trade with the US since Trump took office last year are major drivers of the warmer relations and increased and diversified trade developing between other major economies. The EU signed a major free trade agreement with India last week just after finalizing a deal with a group of South American countries, and other countries like the UK are exploring improved ties with China as well.

In a final recent geopolitical development, Panama’s Supreme Court nullified Hutchinson Port rights to operate its terminals at either end of the Panama Canal. The Hong Kong company was in stalled negotiations to sell those ports following Trump’s objection to a China-related presence in the canal. Maersk’s APMTP was appointed to take over operations in the interim.

In air cargo, pre-LNY demand may be one factor in China-US rates continuing to rebound to $6.74/kg last week from about $5.50/kg in early January. Post the new year slump, South East Asia – US prices are climbing as well, up to almost $5.00/kg last week from $4.00/kg just a few weeks ago.

China – Europe rates dipped 4% to $3.44/kg last week, with SEA – Europe prices up 7% to more than $3.20/kg, and transatlantic rates up 10% to more than $2.50/kg, a level 25% higher than early this year.

Discover Freightos Enterprise

Freightos Terminal: Real-time pricing dashboards to benchmark rates and track market trends.

Procure: Streamlined procurement and cost savings with digital rate management and automated workflows.

Rate, Book, & Manage: Real-time rate comparison, instant booking, and easy tracking at every shipment stage.

Judah Levine

Head of Research, Freightos Group

Judah is an experienced market research manager, using data-driven analytics to deliver market-based insights. Judah produces the Freightos Group’s FBX Weekly Freight Update and other research on what’s happening in the industry from shipper behaviors to the latest in logistics technology and digitization.

Put the Data in Data-Backed Decision Making

Freightos Terminal helps tens of thousands of freight pros stay informed across all their ports and lanes

The post Winter weather challenges, trade deals and more tariff threats – February 3, 2026 Update appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Microsoft and the Operationalization of AI: Why Platform Strategy Is Colliding with Execution Reality

Published

on

By

Microsoft And The Operationalization Of Ai: Why Platform Strategy Is Colliding With Execution Reality

Microsoft has positioned itself as one of the central platforms for enterprise AI. Through Azure, Copilot, Fabric, and a rapidly expanding ecosystem of AI services, the company is not merely offering tools, it is proposing an operating model for how intelligence should be embedded across enterprise workflows.

For supply chain and logistics leaders, the significance of Microsoft’s strategy is less about individual features and more about how platform decisions increasingly shape where AI lives, how it is governed, and which decisions it ultimately influences.

From Cloud Infrastructure to Operating Layer

Historically, Microsoft’s role in supply chain technology centered on infrastructure and productivity software. Azure provided scalable compute and storage, while Office and collaboration tools supported planning and coordination. That boundary has shifted.

Microsoft is now positioning AI as a horizontal operating layer that spans data management, analytics, decision support, and execution. Azure AI services, Microsoft Fabric, and Copilot are designed to work together, reducing friction between data ingestion, model development, and business consumption.

The implication for operations leaders is subtle but important: AI is no longer something added to systems; it is increasingly embedded into the platforms those systems rely on.

Copilot and the Question of Decision Proximity

Copilot has become a focal point of Microsoft’s AI narrative. Positioned as an assistive layer across applications, Copilot aims to surface insights, generate recommendations, and automate routine tasks.

For supply chain use cases, the key question is not whether Copilot can generate answers, but where those answers appear in the decision chain. Insights delivered inside productivity tools can improve awareness and coordination, but operational value depends on whether recommendations are connected to execution systems.

This highlights a broader pattern: AI that remains advisory improves efficiency; AI that is embedded into workflows influences outcomes. Microsoft’s challenge is bridging that gap consistently across heterogeneous enterprise environments.

Microsoft Fabric and the Data Foundation Problem

Microsoft Fabric represents an attempt to simplify and unify the enterprise data landscape. By combining data engineering, analytics, and governance into a single platform, Microsoft is addressing one of the most persistent barriers to AI adoption: fragmented and inconsistent data.

For supply chain organizations, Fabric’s value lies in its potential to standardize event data across planning, execution, and visibility systems. However, unification does not eliminate the need for data discipline. Event quality, latency, and ownership remain operational issues, not platform features.

Fabric reduces friction, but it does not resolve governance by itself.

Integration with Existing Enterprise Systems

Microsoft’s AI strategy assumes coexistence with existing ERP, WMS, TMS, and planning platforms. Integration, rather than replacement, is the dominant pattern.

This creates both opportunity and risk. On one hand, Microsoft can act as a connective tissue across systems that were never designed to work together. On the other, loosely coupled integration increases dependence on interface stability and data consistency.

In execution-heavy environments, even small integration failures can cascade quickly. As AI becomes more embedded, integration reliability becomes a strategic concern.

Where AI Is Delivering Value, and Where It Isn’t

AI deployments tend to deliver value fastest in areas such as demand sensing, scenario analysis, reporting automation, and exception identification. These use cases align well with Microsoft’s strengths in analytics, collaboration, and scalable infrastructure.

Where value is harder to realize is in autonomous execution. Closed-loop decision-making that directly triggers operational action requires tighter coupling with execution systems and clearer decision ownership.

This reinforces a recurring theme: platform AI accelerates insight, but execution still depends on operating model design.

Constraints That Still Apply

Despite the breadth of Microsoft’s AI portfolio, familiar constraints remain. Data quality, security, compliance, and organizational readiness continue to limit outcomes. AI platforms do not eliminate the need for process clarity or decision accountability.

In some cases, the ease of deploying AI services can outpace an organization’s ability to absorb them operationally. This creates a risk of insight saturation without action.

Why Microsoft Matters to Supply Chain Leaders

Microsoft’s relevance lies in its ability to shape the default environment in which enterprise AI operates. Platform decisions made today influence data architectures, governance models, and user expectations for years.

For supply chain leaders, the key takeaway is not to adopt Microsoft’s AI stack wholesale, but to understand how platform-level AI affects where intelligence sits, how it flows, and who ultimately acts on it.

The next phase of AI adoption will not be defined solely by model performance. It will be defined by how effectively platforms like Microsoft’s translate intelligence into operational decisions under real-world constraints.

The post Microsoft and the Operationalization of AI: Why Platform Strategy Is Colliding with Execution Reality appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Trending