Our cyber security products span from our next gen SIEM used in the most secure government and critical infrastructure environments, to automated cyber risk reporting applications for commercial and government organisations of all sizes.
The European Union formally adopted NIS2, the successor to the NIS directive, late 2022. NIS2 came into force in January 2023 and all EU states now have 21 months in which to enact national legalisation. They are required to establish the necessary rules, guidance standards and oversight regimes to improve the cyber resilience and incident response capabilities of public and private sector organisations across the EU.
There are a number of differences between the original NIS and this latest NIS2. They reflect a heightened sense of urgency caused by growing cyber attacks, more cases of ransomware disruption and the increase in the unpredictability of geopolitics across the globe.
Firstly, the definition of critical infrastructure – traditionally this meant power, water, gas, transportation, telecommunications, nuclear, airports/ports, healthcare etc. and NIS also included key providers of IT services.
Under NIS2, as in many other jurisdictions where the definition of critical infrastructure has expanded, the number of companies likely to be affected by a disruption caused by cyber-attacks has become broader. Digital service providers (as they were known under the NIS directive) are now categorised as “essential entities” under NIS2 and subject to the strictest requirements, by virtue of the critical role they play in a growing number of enterprises that are key to the operation of the economy – including, for example, cloud computing, telecommunications, managed services and trading platforms.
By definition, the range of cyber security provisions in NIS2 are, in places, somewhat vague and open to interpretation. The national laws to support the Directive are to be enacted by October 2024 and will provide further details. National Sector Regulators will play a role in defining what is appropriate for businesses operating in each of the service areas.
Article 21, paragraph 2 in the full text requires that organisations take appropriate measures to manage cyber risk, including:
Furthermore, the EU body ENISA will be tasked with creating standards and guidance where necessary.
Article 25 paragraphs 1 and 2 outline these national and central standard-setting roles:
In order to promote the convergent implementation of Article 21(1) and (2), Member States shall, without imposing or discriminating in favour of the use of a particular type of technology, encourage the use of European and international standards and technical specifications relevant to the security of network and information systems.
ENISA, in cooperation with Member States, and, where appropriate, after consulting relevant stakeholders, shall draw up advice and guidelines regarding the technical areas to be considered in relation to paragraph 1 as well as regarding already existing standards, including national standards, which would allow for those areas to be covered.
For many businesses these controls will not be a surprise, in fact, it’s highly unlikely that any organisation these days is truly starting from scratch when it comes to cyber security controls. One could argue that to even have survived this long (whether covered by NIS previously or not) businesses must have had a selection of these controls in place. However, that’s where the next change to NIS2’s requirements come in …
With the shift to NIS2 the level of regulatory requirements and oversight elevates considerably.
For one thing, significant incidents and breaches will be required to be notified within 24 hours, and updates must then follow within 72 hours, of first becoming aware of the incident. Secondly, there is scope for regulatory intervention in critical providers before breaches occur – either to ensure controls are in place or, potentially even, to intervene and shore up defences where there is a suspicion that current security efforts might not be adequate. This may not be dissimilar to arrangements brought into law by Australia for critical infrastructure providers in March 2022.
In view of the fact that many larger providers, and many digital/on-line businesses, operate trans-nationally, there is also a mechanism – EU-CyCLONe – that is planned to be able to coordinate the response to incidents across the whole of the EU, rather than being isolated to national levels or geographic siloes.
Penalties are increasing. It seems that the success of the penalty regime for GDPR will be mirrored under NIS2 with the penalties structured to provide a greater incentive for businesses to comply with the requirements.
The sanctions can now be up to €10m or 2% of global turnover, for essential entities.
Say “critical infrastructure” and you immediately think of large companies. Power generation, water, transportation – the giants of industry that provide critical services to an economy and its citizens. Smaller business (in terms of premises, staff numbers or turnover), however, can also affect a range of citizen services. As such, the directive now applies to businesses of 50 employees and up and with a turnover beyond €10m.
The NIS2 Directive only applies to the European Union Member States, although companies trading in the EU are likely to find themselves caught up in NIS2 obligations. Equally importantly, the new regulations align very closely to similar provisions now operating in many other jurisdictions.
So NIS2 isn’t alone, and businesses will find an increasingly universal need to both improve the in-house management of their cyber security controls; and be able to demonstrate their resilience levels to regulators either before a breach, and certainly, after one.
The UK market has its own regulators, security standards and challenges. And while rulings from SEC in the US or the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in Australia don’t apply to UK companies, for the most part, the observations are undoubtedly relevant and the resulting advice instructive. It would be wrong to think UK financial […]Read more
<<< Part 2a: Australia’s Essential Eight: Beyond Endpoint Control <<< Part 2b: Activating UK NCSC & US NIST Guidelines: Beyond Endpoint Control Part 4: Systematic Measurement of Cyber Controls >>> As much as we invest into cyber security controls, external threats are inevitable. In a recent Notifiable Data Breaches Report from the Office of the […]Read more
Keen campers, scouts and even the Swiss Army know – that a good penknife is indispensable. This simple device has mitigated many a disaster at one point in time or another. Whether it’s to cut through a bit of string, tighten a screw or simply to solve the problem of no bottle opener in the […]Read more
Supply chain risk is an area of cyber security that demands the ongoing attention of every enterprise; because it can make the difference between being resilient or not. It’s no surprise that insurers warn that the vulnerability of supply chains is potentially a systemic risk that can quickly propagate across supply chain dominated industries. Organisations […]Read more
It took a “tripartite cyber assessment” by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to identify that a sample of financial organisations had inadequate cyber security: poor security control management, a lack of business recovery planning and inadequate 3rd party risk assessment. Why were there gaps? Where is the failure? Clearly the common practice of unsubstantiated […]Read more
The discussion over data-driven vs qualitative cyber security assessment has been going for some time. Nowadays, it is at the top of the priority list for many security and senior executive teams. Managing cyber security has always been a noble ambition but without reliable measurement, the lack of actionable information makes evidence-based management decisions almost […]Read more
Attack Surface Management (ASM) characterises a business’s security risks as the monitoring and risk mitigation of a constantly changing and vulnerable “risk-surface”. Importantly, this attack surface extends to both internal and external assets and services. Some ASM solutions deliver clear visibility across both Internet facing and internal assets. Others do not. Instead, they assess external […]Read more
The UK Government has released its annual “Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2023”. It provides some valuable insights into how cyber security is currently being managed in the UK, by a range of organisations. It also speaks to how current competing economic priorities are impacting the effectiveness of some cyber security management efforts. The full report […]Read more
Solving the mismatch between cyber security reporting and directors’ requirements You are undoubtedly familiar with the headlines; you may have even become in part desensitised to them: ‘Cyber-attacks are increasingly damaging’, or ‘large amounts of personal data are most at risk’. The important take-away, however, is that modern day thieves can easily gain access to […]Read more
A system to address the untrustworthy security environment Zero trust approaches to security have been talked about for a while; but in recent times they have certainly gained more currency. As a model for protecting data and services, the simplicity of the concept is its biggest strength – assume, as a default position, there is […]Read more
Read by directors, executives, and security professionals globally, operating in the most complex of security environments.