NIS2, IEC 62443, ISO 27019, verifiable compliance instead of risk.
Industrial control environments can’t afford gaps in cybersecurity. New laws and standards now require operators to prove that they’ve implemented robust risk-management processes, threat detection and governance frameworks.
Our Regulatory Compliance offering begins with a tailored gap assessment that benchmarks your current controls against every applicable requirement. We then provide a clear remediation roadmap, and stick with you through implementation to full audit-readiness.
Get a definitive baseline of your OT controls against live regulations
Detect critical non-compliances before auditors do
Focus your budget on the fixes that deliver the biggest risk drop
Arm executives with polished reports and dashboards
Simplify future audits with organised evidence and checklists
Set technical and organizational boundaries.
Standards-aligned, OT-specific evaluation.
Executive and technical documentation.
This service is particularly valuable in the sectors below, due to their specific regulations, asset base and threat models.
Regulatory compliance on the OT side is not document production. Auditors look at operation, so evidence emerges from the technical work rather than being produced separately.
We list which regulations apply and what each clause expects from the OT environment. Overlaps are handled together so the same thing is not produced twice.
Not by questionnaire but from asset inventory, traffic analysis and interviews. What exists on paper but does not work is not compliance.
Risk-weighted, with owners and deadlines. Quick wins separated out so there are demonstrable results in the first weeks.
Each requirement is mapped to its policy, operational trace, owner and review frequency. This is what an inspection actually asks for.
Requirements overlap heavily. Handled together, a single body of technical work satisfies several compliance obligations.
| Framework | What it expects from OT | Where the evidence appears |
|---|---|---|
| IEC 62443-2-1 | Security programme, roles, supplier management | Policy, responsibility matrix |
| IEC 62443-3-2 | Risk assessment, zones, Security Levels | Zone design, SL classification |
| IEC 62443-2-3 | Patch management process | Vulnerability report, risk acceptance |
| NIS2, measures 1 and 5 | Risk analysis, vulnerability handling | Risk register, patch plan |
| NIS2, measure 9 | Asset inventory, access control | OT asset inventory, access matrix |
| ISO 27001 A.8.20-8.22 | Network security, segregation | Segmentation design, firewall rules |
| Sector regulations | Process safety, operational continuity | BCP, SIS documentation |
This is rarely a free choice. The legal obligation is given (depending on sector), and IEC 62443 is not an alternative but the technical language for delivering it on the OT side. In practice the law says what must be achieved and 62443 says how. If an ISO 27001 management system already exists it need not be discarded: a significant part of the controls carries across, and only the OT-specific portion must be added.
Gap analysis and plan take 4-6 weeks. Implementation depends on the starting point. With an asset inventory and basic segmentation in place, 6-9 months is realistic. Starting from zero in OT, 12-18 months is more likely, because the technical foundations (inventory, DMZ, monitoring) must be built too. Quick wins are available in the first weeks though: assigning roles, an incident handling procedure, closing undocumented remote access.
No. Inspection looks at operation: is there a real asset inventory, has restoration been tested, does MFA work on supplier channels, has management been trained. A policy remains paper regardless of who signed it. That is why we work so that evidence emerges from the technical work: the zone design, the vulnerability report and the inventory are simultaneously technical outputs and compliance evidence.
The management body, and that accountability cannot be delegated to the IT manager or the plant engineer. Management approves the measures, oversees implementation and is liable for failures. The practical consequence is that approval and management training must be documented, because an inspection asks for this first. A named contact for the authority must also be appointed.
A documented action plan with deadlines counts for a great deal. Regulatory proceedings are graduated: information requests, inspection, warning and binding instruction precede any fine. An organisation able to present a gap analysis and a schedule is in a materially better position even if compliance is incomplete. What cannot be defended is silence and missing documentation.