Continuous security checks on the lifts, HVAC and access systems of office parks
TL;DR Bayglass watches the building-control network of large Indian office parks - chillers, lifts, access doors, energy meters and fire panels. It lists every controller, checks it for known weaknesses each week and gives the landlord a report that global tenants accept. Park operators pay per campus each year.
A modern office park runs on hundreds of networked controllers that no IT team ever bought. Facility vendors install them, set default passwords and leave remote-access links open for maintenance. One security vendor's research team found 98% of IoT traffic travelled unencrypted and 57% of devices were open to medium- or high-severity attacks[1]. The Mirai botnet showed how fast default logins on such devices get harvested at scale[2].
In India the stakes sit with landlords. One listed REIT alone runs 14 office parks covering 52.5 million sq ft across five cities, with about 285 corporate occupiers[3]. Those tenants run their own security programmes, and yet the building systems in their offices sit outside them.
What it does: security monitoring of building systems, not control of them. Bayglass never changes a setpoint or opens a door.
A sensor listens on the building-management network through a mirror port. It identifies each controller by maker, model and firmware, then matches it against public vulnerability lists and maker advisories every week. It flags default credentials, outdated firmware, unexpected internet connections and vendor remote-access links that stay open. Facility managers get a short fix list, and landlords get a quarterly report they can hand to tenants' security teams.
The seed proposed continuous automated assessments of IoT devices in general, and I narrowed it to building systems and made it passive-first. Why passive? Active scanning can stall older controllers (nobody wants to be the startup that froze a chiller), so active checks run only on devices the facility team approves, in agreed windows.
The users are facility and engineering managers at the park. The payer is the landlord or REIT, whose leasing team fields security questionnaires from tenants. Global OT security vendors cover building automation inside wider OT platforms[4] and publish no prices. A yearly fee of ₹8–20 lakh per campus is my assumption to test.
CERT-In's April 2022 directions oblige companies to report attacks on IoT devices within six hours and to keep 180 days of logs in India[5]. If a landlord can't list its building controllers then it can't help a tenant meet that duty. Indian office parks also house a growing share of global firms' offshore centres, whose head offices audit physical sites.
I found no public figure for spending on building-system security in India. The base is concrete though - a single REIT runs 52.5 million sq ft of offices with about 285 occupiers[3], and that's one of several listed office REITs. Global OT vendors list building automation as a solution line[4], which shows demand abroad but does not size an Indian market.
One global OT vendor sells sensors and threat detection with a building-automation solution[4]. Another offers cyber-physical security for commercial facilities[6]. Building-management system makers sell their own remote services, but they rarely audit rival vendors' equipment on the same site.
The gap is a vendor-neutral, landlord-paid check priced for Indian campuses, with reports written for tenants' security teams.
| Difficulty | Moderate (46/100) |
| Starting capital | ₹1.2–2.2 Cr |
| Time to launch | 9–12 months |
The hard part is the device library. Identifying controllers from many building-system makers, each with its own protocols and firmware, takes months inside real campuses. Getting facility vendors to close their remote-access links is the other battle, because they rely on those links for maintenance and won't give them up without a fight.
Bayglass needs no sector licence. The approvals that matter are contracts and consent.
Building this outside India? The categories above usually have a local equivalent, so check with your own regulator.
Never let AI change a setpoint or open a door. Bayglass monitors and reports, and people on site decide what to fix.
Want to work out the AI layer for Bayglass? Talk to Yash →
Here's what can go south -
I think this suits a founder with building-automation or OT security experience and access to facility teams. If you're a pure software founder who can't spend weeks in plant rooms then give it a miss. Prove one thing first - that two park operators will pay for a 60-day assessment after seeing their own controller list.
Plan for roughly ₹1.2–2.2 Cr, mostly on building the sensor and software, OT security engineers and pilots with landlords.
No sector licence. You need written consent from the landlord and facility contractor, plus the usual company registration, GST, CERT-In duties and DPDP compliance.
Yes, since office parks everywhere run similar controllers. Check local cyber incident rules, data protection law and what leases allow on network monitoring.
The free Bayglass validation kit has the line-by-line capital breakdown, the effort scoring, the CERT-In and data-protection checklist, a 14-day validation sprint with pass/fail targets, a 90-day launch plan, 10 interview questions for landlords and facility teams, and 5 assumptions to test. Download the kit →
Thinking about building Bayglass or something close to it? The make-or-break work is building an accurate controller library and getting the first landlord to pay. If you need a hand, you know where to find me. Talk to Yash →
For illustration only. Names are fictional and ideas hypothetical; sourced facts are real but may be out of date. Nothing here is legal, financial or professional advice, and Yash Khatri is not personally liable for any use of it. Read the full disclaimer.