Many research labs and technical facilities face a gap between security best practices and their practical implementation. While frameworks like NIST exist, they often remain too generic—leaving organizations struggling to secure sensitive equipment and data without dedicated expertise. This creates risks ranging from intellectual property theft to compromised experiments, yet few resources bridge the theory-to-practice divide for these specialized environments.

A Hands-On Security Toolkit

One approach could be creating a modular, action-oriented guide specifically designed for labs. Instead of theoretical advice, it might offer:

• Step-by-step checklists for physical security (e.g., access logs for sensitive equipment)
• Pre-configured cybersecurity templates (network segmentation for lab devices)
• Scenario-based training materials tailored to research workflows

An MVP could start as a free PDF or webpage covering the most universal needs—like securing data backups or managing staff access. Over time, it could expand into specialized modules (e.g., compliance for biomedical labs) through partnerships with domain experts.

Why Labs Would Use This

Unlike broad frameworks, such a toolkit could address key pain points relevant to resource-constrained environments:

• Time savings: Pre-built templates let small teams implement controls faster.
• Credibility: Case studies showing real lab breaches could demonstrate urgency.
• Adaptability: A subset of content could be open for community contributions (e.g., GitHub-style) to keep pace with new threats.

Revenue might come from premium modules (e.g., audit support) or partnerships with security vendors—while keeping core resources freely accessible to maximize impact.

Standing Out From Existing Solutions

While SANS offers training and NIST provides standards, neither focuses on practical steps for labs. For example, instead of just recommending "restrict device access," the toolkit might include a printable sign-in sheet for lab visitors or a script to automate software updates on research computers. This specificity—paired with real-world examples like reported lab breaches—could make security feel less abstract for researchers.

Testing demand would be critical: a pilot with 5-10 labs could reveal whether the toolkit reduces time-to-implementation versus existing guides, or identifies unmet needs like multilingual support for international teams.