FORTRESS Framework
Where
Physical Security Village
DEF CON 34
Duration
22 min
Presents FORTRESS, a categorized model of physical security TTPs mapped to compliance controls for repeatable red and blue team assessments.
Summary
The speaker, who has tested physical security for about fifteen years, argues that the field lacks a structured methodology. Assessments are often ad hoc, driven by personal checklists and scattered notes, so reports from different firms or teams are hard to compare. He says compliance regimes such as HIPAA and CMMC call for physical testing that is frequently skipped or treated lightly.
He introduces FORTRESS as a web application that organizes physical attacker behavior into tactics, techniques and procedures, in a style modeled on MITRE ATT&CK. Each entry links to compliance controls and includes execution steps, pass or fail validation, and evidence requirements. The talk walks through attack chains for both a simple assessment and a full red-team engagement, covering reconnaissance of entry points, guards and cameras, tailgating, badge bypass, impersonation and movement between floors. He also shares lessons from his own work, including a detention after entering a facility the client did not actually control, and the need to photograph proof.
The takeaway is that physical testing should follow a repeatable method, check rules of engagement first, and record findings as the work proceeds. The speaker plans to add report generation and blue-team detection content in future versions.
Materials
Related talks
Physical Security Village·25 min
Andrew Lebedinsky
Shows how to turn physical red team findings into realistic threat evidence and dollar-based impact that persuades executives to fund fixes.
Adversary Village·43 min
Sarah · Olaf · Cheryl Biswas
Panelists discuss how to turn threat intelligence into adversary simulation exercises that test whether detections and controls actually hold up.
AI Village·24 min
Julie Brunias
Introduces an eight-class taxonomy of agentic AI security failures and a refusal-filtered harness showing that the orchestration framework shifts compromise rates.


