It is not uncommon for containers to get stuck at port. Drivers grow frustrated the longer they wait, as many get paid by the load. Stakeholders become incensed watching daily losses climb. While the initial frustration points to longshore workers, the real culprit is port congestion caused by factors such as demand imbalances, weather conditions and blank sailings.

Read also: Delivering with Confidence: Tips For Properly Strapping Down Containers 

Soon, a lack of security preparedness will become a contributing factor. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) updated its port security rules in 2025 to reflect the rapid, widespread digitalization of marine vessels and maritime systems. Companies can no longer treat security as an afterthought — it is now a critical bottleneck. 

The Coast Guard’s New Cybersecurity Mandates

The USCG’s Cybersecurity in the Marine Transportation System establishes minimum cybersecurity requirements for U.S.-flagged vessels, Outer Continental Shelf facilities and entities subject to the Maritime Transportation Security Act, not just port authorities. 

The final rule was published on January 17, 2025, and took effect on July 17, 2025. As of this date, personnel must report all cyber incidents to the National Response Center. As of January 12, 2026, they must complete the training specified in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 101.650. Anyone hired after this date must be trained within five days of gaining access to company systems — but no later than 30 days after hiring — and annually thereafter. 

By July 2027, owners and operators must appoint a cybersecurity officer (CySO), who will conduct the cybersecurity assessment, schedule biannual security drills and submit the plan for approval. This individual can be a full-time employee or contractor. 

The final rule also details mandatory incident response plans, reporting requirements, risk assessments and cybersecurity drills. Its purpose is to strengthen overall port security, preventing costly delays both offshore and onshore. With the phased implementation period’s deadline fast approaching, it is in companies’ best interests to prioritize compliance. 

What the USCG’s Port Security Rules Mean for You

Cybersecurity in the Marine Transportation System — codified at 33 CFR Section 101.600 through 101.670 — sets new security standards and reporting requirements. As the first cybersecurity subpart to the General Maritime Security rules, it represents a significant change to day-to-day operations. 

The new rules build upon other physical and digital security mandates. For instance, it relates to the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program that went into effect in 2007, mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act. Entities face fines ranging from $500 to $35,000 for noncompliance, depending on the severity and frequency of the offense. 

This was the root of the transition from physical to digital security. As regulators adopted biometric-based verification systems, governments automated ports and private businesses undertook digitalization campaigns, cybersecurity became a focal point. 

Still, the USCG’s cybersecurity mandates represent a paradigm shift. Ports are now seen as critical infrastructure and are vulnerable to digital attacks. The responsibility for protecting operations is being placed on maritime stakeholders, including owners, operators and laborers. Compliance necessitates recordkeeping, training, audits and incident response.

How the Blame Game Masks Deeper Security Flaws

Dockworkers connect land and sea transport, so they are often the first blamed for delays. This may be because just 6% of organizations have complete visibility into their extended supply chains. If they cannot see into their Tier 3 suppliers’ operations, it is easier to make waterfront laborers the scapegoats.

Crane operators are accused of working too slowly or skipping trucks, exacerbating wait times for drivers. However, they should not get the brunt of the blame — especially when blaming the wrong person hinders effective problem-solving. 

Leaders do not have to choose between placing blame and throwing their hands up in defeat. Efficiently addressing security gaps creates resilience by design, helping prevent delays associated with heightened port security requirements. 

A significant percentage of the world’s ports are already seeing delays. In 2024, global transit times increased by 30% on average year over year, while container journey times across key trade routes rose by 20%. Geopolitical conflicts, blank sailings, trade restrictions, adverse weather conditions and port congestion contributed to the surge. 

Delays may worsen as companies get used to evolving maritime security requirements. Instead of pointing fingers at crane operators, industry leaders should prepare contingency plans. Compliance is key — those who streamline processes instead of waiting until the deadline get an opportunity to fine-tune workflows and eliminate mistakes. 

The Ripple Effect of Minor Cybersecurity Breaches

As modern marine vessels become increasingly digitized, they become more vulnerable to cyberthreats. With cargo handling, navigation, propulsion and dynamic positioning systems starting to become reliant on internet-connected systems, a robust cybersecurity strategy is key. 

Automation, analytics and remote support are becoming increasingly central to operations. Crews and shoreside workers must collaborate to defend against cybercriminals. A hacker could compromise any one of their systems, going unnoticed long enough to cause significant financial and reputational damage. For example, they could exploit remote access protocols to push legitimate-looking commands directly to critical equipment in real time. 

Even minor issues can cause major problems if left unchecked, making security compliance a bottleneck. Say a driver arrives without proper credentials or a company fails a single cyber audit. Either mistake could halt operations entirely. 

Alternatively, trucks could be turned away, causing them to miss loading slots and incur demurrage fees. The cascading impact on the extended supply chain could cause immense financial losses. These are the consequences of not developing incident response plans for physical and digital security. Industry leaders must reframe security as a key element of operational efficiency. 

Quantifying the Cost of Security Gaps at the Dock

The cost of investing in new security tools could be high. Companies must also hire a CySO to develop, implement and maintain the plans. This individual will work full time, acting as the liaison between the captain of the port, the vessel and the facility security officers. This could represent a significant labor expense. 

However, organizations may ultimately save money by closing cybersecurity gaps. Improving their security posture makes them less likely to incur fines and safeguards them from costly data breaches. Additionally, it enhances their supply chain’s resilience. While others are forced to halt operations due to a ransomware attack or hold a vessel in port for failing a cyber audit, they will continue operating as usual. 

Conducting a historical analysis of port-to-port performance based on the company’s ports of loading and destination can help them streamline physical operations. For cybersecurity best practices, they should consult their CySO, partners and USCG guidance. 

Designing a Culture of Security From the Keel Up

While port congestion issues are systemic, port security will likely be a major contributor to delays through the implementation phase. To prevent compliance from becoming a bottleneck, companies should prioritize security and empower their teams to identify cyberthreats.