Event security has traditionally been divided into two broad areas. Physical security has focused on access control, screening, surveillance, crowd management, and emergency response. Meanwhile, cybersecurity has concentrated on protecting networks, databases, ticketing platforms, and payment systems.
Modern events increasingly make that separation difficult to maintain. A cyberattack can affect who is allowed into a venue, while a physical threat such as an unauthorized drone can require sophisticated digital systems for detection and response. Large events also depend on interconnected technologies across ticketing, transportation, communications, surveillance, and venue operations.
Effective security, therefore, requires these areas to work together. In this article, let’s find out how a balance can be struck between these two systems.
Build Security Around the Entire Event Journey, Not Individual Threats
Event security should follow the attendee’s entire journey rather than treating every security checkpoint as an isolated function. The process begins when a person purchases a ticket and continues through arrival, screening, entry, time inside the venue, and departure. Each stage introduces different risks that can overlap with other parts of the security operation.
In the early stage, the digital side of this process is particularly important. Ticketing and payment systems contain valuable customer information and also determine who is authorized to enter a venue. As such, this area tends to be the focus of malicious actors.
For instance, in 2024, Live Nation confirmed its Ticketmaster subsidiary was hacked, with a hacker claiming to be selling 560 million customer records. TechCrunch obtained some of this allegedly stolen data to find it contained thousands of records, including email addresses.
Excellent cybersecurity is thus needed to prevent such breaches. Likewise, on the physical side of things, screening attendees is also important. CEIA OPENGATE weapon detection systems for events can provide an important layer of protection in this regard. These devices can help identify potential weapons while allowing security personnel to focus their attention on people or objects that require closer assessment.
As GXC Inc. notes, they are great for high-traffic events since they have deployment times of under 1 minute. That will come in handy as entries and exits often change depending on crowds and threat assessments.
Remember, regardless of what systems are used, the objective is to create a screening process that protects attendees without producing unnecessary congestion. This is because excessive queues can themselves create crowd-management challenges.
Connect Physical Threat Detection With Digital Intelligence
Many threats that appear physical now depend on digital technology for detection, analysis, and response. For instance, surveillance cameras can use automated analytics to identify unusual activity, and specialized technologies can detect drones approaching restricted airspace. These systems are valuable because large venues generate more activity than human security personnel can continuously observe on their own.
Drone activity around stadiums provides a particularly useful example. NFL testimony to Congress reported 2,537 rogue drone flights into restricted stadium airspace in 2022. This increased to 2,845 incursions in 2023. What’s more, current laws limit interception of drones and signals, which complicates counter-drone operations.
An unauthorized entry is a physical security problem. Yet, identifying it, tracking its movement, determining its location, and potentially countering it can depend heavily on digital detection and jamming systems.
Technology alone, however, does not constitute a complete response. A drone detection alert needs to reach someone who understands what the alert means and knows what action to take.
In such cases, security may need to identify the operator, and law enforcement may need to be called. Thus, a digital system becomes considerably more useful when every major alert has a clearly established physical response chain behind it.
Treat the Venue as One Connected Attack Surface
Large events increasingly rely on an ecosystem of interconnected systems, many of which may be operated by different vendors or organizations. These include:
- Ticketing providers
- Payment processors
- Transportation platforms
- Wi-Fi networks
- Digital signage
- Credentialing systems
- Access controls
- Communications infrastructure
- Building-management systems
All of them contribute to the operation of a major event. A weakness in one area can therefore create consequences elsewhere. Despite these factors being obvious, even hosts of large events can make mistakes.
Look at the 2024 Paris Olympics. Marie-Rose Bruno, director of technology and information systems for the Paris Games, had predicted 8-10 times more cyberattacks than the Tokyo Olympics. During the games, France’s national cybersecurity agency ANSSI recorded 119 low-impact security events and 22 successful incidents against Olympic-linked systems.
This illustrates why resilience should be part of event security planning. Organizations cannot necessarily prevent every attempted intrusion, but they can try to predict where vulnerabilities exist and thwart the majority of attacks.
Security teams should also conduct failure-path exercises. Instead of asking only whether a system can be breached, they should ask what happens to the physical event if that system suddenly becomes unavailable.
Use AI and Human Coordination To Turn Security Data Into Action
Event security teams are dealing with increasingly complex behavior while gaining access to increasingly sophisticated technology. Sometimes, risks can come from attendee behavior as well, which is another factor to consider.
For instance, look at data from the National Center for Spectator Sports Safety’s 2024 Venue Security Directors Survey. It interviewed 152 directors across the MLB, MLS, NBA, NFL, and NHL. The findings were that 70% of directors believe that fan behavior has gotten worse over the past five years. To deal with this, 31% report some form of AI already deployed in their security operations.
AI can help security personnel process the enormous amount of information produced by modern venues. Video analytics can flag unusual crowd movement or abandoned objects, while other systems can identify potential perimeter breaches or unusual patterns across multiple cameras.
Human judgment remains essential, particularly when an AI alert could have several explanations. Security teams, therefore, need clear procedures for reviewing and escalating AI-generated alerts.
Joint exercises can test this relationship by simulating situations where a digital failure creates a physical consequence. The goal is to ensure that information moves quickly enough for the right people to make informed decisions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the biggest security risks at large public events?
Large public events face a mix of physical and digital threats, including weapons, crowd-related incidents, unauthorized drones, terrorism, cyberattacks, ticketing fraud, and system failures. Third-party vendors can also introduce vulnerabilities, particularly when ticketing, payment, communication, and access-control systems are interconnected.
How do security teams respond to cyberattacks during live events?
Security teams first assess whether the attack is affecting critical event operations, such as ticketing, communications, access control, or payment systems. They can isolate affected systems, activate backup procedures, and coordinate with cybersecurity specialists while physical-security teams monitor for any consequences inside the venue.
What should an event security plan include?
An event security plan should cover access control, attendee screening, weapon detection, crowd management, surveillance, emergency response, cybersecurity, communications, and coordination with law enforcement. It should also identify who is responsible for each response and include contingency plans for technology failures, cyberattacks, severe weather, and other emergencies.
Key Numbers & Facts at a Glance
| Ticketmaster customer records allegedly offered for sale | 560 million |
| Rogue drone flights into restricted stadium airspace | 2,845 in 2023 |
| Low-impact security events during the Paris Olympics | 119 |
| Successful incidents targeting Olympic-linked systems | 22 |
Balancing digital and physical security requires event organizers to view the venue as a connected environment. One where risks range from ticketing breaches and unauthorized drones to concealed weapons and network intrusions. The security of a major event is ultimately determined by how well its different systems behave when something goes wrong.
Likewise, the most useful security plans also leave room for uncertainty. This is because events rarely unfold exactly as expected, and systems can fail at inconvenient moments. Teams that have already considered how they will operate when either tech or personnel fail are better positioned to keep the event under control.
