We use essential cookies to run this site. Analytics & marketing cookies load only with your consent — see our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.

CyberSigma Research · full-length reference · registry v1.6.0

The India Compliance Reference 2026

Every dated obligation an Indian organisation answers to — DPDP, CERT-In, RBI, SEBI — sourced to the Gazette or the regulator, plus the four global frameworks decoded control-by-control. Compiled from the open registry and the framework series, so the report and the site can never disagree.

Updated 2026-08-01 · reads ~150 printed pages · use your browser’s Print → Save as PDF for the full document

Chapter 1

Executive overview

India’s compliance landscape stopped being advisory in this decade. The DPDP Act put a ₹250-crore ceiling on data-protection failure, CERT-In put a six-hour clock on incident reporting, RBI moved technology governance from circular to Master Direction, and SEBI gave the securities market a CSF-shaped framework with hard dates. At the same time, the global frameworks that Indian companies sell against — PCI DSS v4.0.1, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, SOC 2, NIST CSF 2.0 — all went through their largest revisions in a decade, and their transition windows have now closed. An organisation operating in India in 2026 is not choosing whether to build a compliance programme; it is choosing whether to build one programme or five.

This reference exists to make that choice with facts rather than folklore. Part one (chapters 2–3) is the dated, sourced obligation base: what commenced when, under which Gazette notification or regulator publication, with a last-verified date on every entry. Part two (chapters 4–7) decodes the four global frameworks at the level where audits are actually decided — requirement, theme, criterion and function — including where programmes fail and the evidence assessors accept. Part three (chapter 8) is the argument the data supports: controls built once, evidenced once, and mapped many times.

A note on integrity: this document is compiled from CyberSigma’s open India Compliance Registry and framework series data. Nothing in it is a survey we did not run or a statistic we cannot source. Where authoritative sources disagree — and on one DPDP commencement date they do — the disagreement is stated, not smoothed over. The method is chapter 9; the registry’s changelog is public; corrections are appended, never silently made.

Chapter 2

The dated obligations, in order

Dates decide budgets. This chapter lists every dated obligation in the registry, most recent first, each with its primary source. 5 obligations are still ahead as of publication — those are the planning horizon.

Still ahead

Phase II — one year from notification13 November 2026

Section 6(9) (verifiable parental consent) and section 27(1)(d) (publication duty) commence one year from notification — November 2026.

Source: DPDP Rules 2025 (phased commencement) · verified 2026-08-01

Phase III — substantive framework1 May 2027

Notice and consent standards, data fiduciary duties, children's data and data principal rights commence eighteen months from notification — May 2027. Published analyses split on 12 vs 13 May; confirm the exact day with counsel before relying on it.

Source: DPDP Rules 2025 (phased commencement) · verified 2026-08-01

Penalty ceiling1 May 2027

The Schedule to the Act caps monetary penalties at up to ₹250 crore per instance for the highest tier (failure to take reasonable security safeguards to prevent a personal data breach), with lower tiers at ₹200 crore, ₹150 crore and below; the Data Protection Board determines penalties on the facts.

Source: DPDP Act 2023, the Schedule (official Gazette text) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Amount verified directly against the Gazette PDF text ('may extend to two hundred and fifty crore rupees'). Enforcement follows the phased commencement (see dpdp-phase-3).

Breach notification timeline (Rule 7)1 May 2027

Under Rule 7 of the DPDP Rules 2025, a data fiduciary must intimate the Data Protection Board of a personal data breach without delay on becoming aware, follow with a detailed report within 72 hours (extendable by the Board), and notify affected data principals of the breach in plain language.

Source: DPDP Rules 2025, Rule 7 · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Timelines corroborated across multiple legal publishers. Enforcement follows the phased commencement (see dpdp-phase-3). Runs in parallel with CERT-In’s 6-hour incident reporting — the same incident triggers both.

Notice contents (section 5)1 May 2027

Every consent request must be accompanied or preceded by a notice informing the data principal of: (i) the personal data and the purpose of processing; (ii) the manner of exercising rights under s.6(4) (withdrawal) and s.13 (grievance redressal); and (iii) the manner of making a complaint to the Data Protection Board. For consents given before commencement, notice must follow as soon as reasonably practicable.

Source: DPDP Act 2023, section 5 (official Gazette text) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Contents verified directly against the Gazette PDF text. Notice must be available in English or any Eighth Schedule language.

In force

Phase I — in force on notification13 November 2025

Provisions constituting and empowering the Data Protection Board (ss.18–26), definitions, and procedural rules took effect on 13 November 2025.

Source: DPDP Rules 2025 (phased commencement) · verified 2026-08-01

DPDP Rules 2025 notification13 November 2025

Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 notified 13 November 2025 as G.S.R. 843(E), Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II s.3(i).

Source: MeitY / PIB — DPDP Rules 2025 · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Gazette date corroborated across multiple law-firm analyses; the PIB document filename carries the press-release date (17 Nov), not the notification date.

Programme and acquisition rule dates10 November 2025

The CMMC Program rule (32 CFR Part 170) was published 15 October 2024 and took effect 16 December 2024. The acquisition rule (48 CFR) took effect 10 November 2025, starting a phased rollout that adds CMMC requirements to DoD contracts in four annual phases.

Source: US Federal Register — CMMC Program rule (32 CFR 170) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: 48 CFR effective date corroborated across defence-contracting counsel and assessor publications.

2022-revision transition deadline31 October 2025

The IAF three-year transition window for ISO/IEC 27001:2013 certificates ended 31 October 2025 — certificates not transitioned to the 2022 revision by that date lapsed.

Source: ISO/IEC 27001 (iso.org) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Deadline corroborated across accredited certification bodies (BSI, SGS, LRQA); iso.org blocks automated verification.

Commencement and GPAI obligations2 August 2025

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 entered into force on 1 August 2024. Governance rules and obligations for general-purpose AI (GPAI) model providers apply from 2 August 2025 (with transition for models already on the market).

Source: EU AI Act — official text (EUR-Lex 2024/1689) · verified 2026-08-01

Current version1 May 2025

OWASP Application Security Verification Standard v5.0.0 (May 2025): ~350 requirements across 17 chapters, three verification levels (L1–L3).

Source: OWASP ASVS project · verified 2026-08-01

v4.x lifecycle dates31 March 2025

PCI DSS v3.2.1 retired 31 March 2024. v4.0.1 (a limited revision — no requirements added or removed) was published 11 June 2024, and v4.0 retired 31 December 2024, leaving v4.0.1 the only active version. The 51 future-dated v4.x requirements became mandatory in assessments from 31 March 2025.

Source: PCI Security Standards Council (official blog) · verified 2026-08-01

Issuance and compliance timeline20 August 2024

SEBI issued the Cybersecurity and Cyber Resilience Framework circular on 20 August 2024. Compliance timelines were extended more than once; for most regulated entities (excluding MIIs, KRAs and QRTAs) the final compliance date became 31 August 2025, with recurring half-yearly cyber-audit and reporting cycles thereafter.

Source: SEBI — CSCRF FAQs (official PDF, June 2025) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Extension history corroborated across law-firm analyses (circulars of 31 March 2025 and 30 June 2025).

IT Governance Master Direction1 April 2024

Master Direction on Information Technology Governance, Risk, Controls and Assurance Practices (RBI/DoS/2023-24/107) issued 7 November 2023; effective 1 April 2024. Requires an IT governance framework, information/cyber security policies and periodic IT risk assurance for regulated entities.

Source: Reserve Bank of India (Master Direction RBI/DoS/2023-24/107) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Direction number cited for retrieval via RBI notification search; RBI deep links are session-bound.

Version 2.0 release26 February 2024

NIST released Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 on 26 February 2024 — the first major revision since 2014, adding the Govern function and broadening applicability beyond critical infrastructure.

Source: NIST (official release announcement) · verified 2026-08-01

Essential Cybersecurity Controls versions1 January 2024

Saudi Arabia's National Cybersecurity Authority first issued the Essential Cybersecurity Controls as ECC-1:2018; the updated ECC-2:2024 restructures the framework into 4 domains, 28 subdomains and 108 main controls, binding government entities and critical-infrastructure operators.

Source: National Cybersecurity Authority (Saudi Arabia) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: ECC-2:2024 structure corroborated across multiple assurance publishers; the NCA portal hosts the controlled document.

Publication1 December 2023

ISO/IEC 42001:2023 — the first AI management system (AIMS) standard — was published in December 2023 by ISO/IEC.

Source: ISO/IEC 42001 (iso.org) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: iso.org blocks automated verification; publication corroborated across accredited bodies and major assurance firms.

IT Outsourcing Master Direction1 October 2023

Master Direction on Outsourcing of Information Technology Services (RBI/2023-24/102) issued 10 April 2023; effective 1 October 2023. Governs material IT outsourcing by regulated entities, including vendor risk, audit rights and concentration risk.

Source: Reserve Bank of India (Master Direction RBI/2023-24/102) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Direction number cited for retrieval via RBI notification search.

Enactment11 August 2023

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Act No. 22 of 2023); Presidential assent 11 August 2023; Gazette ID CG-DL-E-12082023-248045.

Source: Official Gazette text (MeitY PDF) · verified 2026-07-31

National Information Assurance Policy version1 May 2023

Qatar's National Cyber Security Agency mandates the National Information Assurance Policy for government entities and critical infrastructure; the current revision is v2.1 (May 2023), superseding v2.0.

Source: NCSA Qatar (official portal) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Version and date corroborated across Qatar-focused GRC publishers; the NCSA portal hosts the controlled document.

Information and Cyber Security Guidelines, 202324 April 2023

IRDAI issued the Information and Cyber Security Guidelines, 2023 on 24 April 2023 — a data-centric, risk-based security framework for insurers and regulated intermediaries, superseding the 2017 guidelines.

Source: IRDAI (official document) · verified 2026-08-01

Provider record-keeping28 June 2022

Data centres, VPS, cloud and VPN providers must register and retain accurate subscriber/customer records for 5 years after cancellation or withdrawal of service.

Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31

Time synchronisation28 June 2022

System clocks must be synchronised to NIC or NPL time sources.

Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31

Log retention28 June 2022

ICT system logs must be maintained for a rolling 180 days, within Indian jurisdiction.

Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31

Incident reporting window28 June 2022

Specified cyber incidents must be reported to CERT-In within 6 hours of noticing.

Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31

Issue and commencement28 June 2022

Directions under Section 70B(6), IT Act 2000 issued 28 April 2022; effective 28 June 2022. Apply to service providers, intermediaries, data centres, body corporates and government organisations.

Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31

Enactment and effect2 January 2022

UAE Federal Decree-Law No. 45 of 2021 on the Protection of Personal Data was issued in 2021 and came into effect on 2 January 2022. The DIFC and ADGM financial free zones run their own data-protection regimes in place of the federal law.

Source: UAE legislation portal / official summaries · verified 2026-08-01

Digital Payment Security Controls Master Direction18 February 2021

Issued 18 February 2021: minimum security standards for digital payment channels — internet banking, mobile payments and card payments — binding scheduled commercial banks, small finance banks, payments banks and card-issuing NBFCs.

Source: Reserve Bank of India (Master Direction, 18 Feb 2021) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Direction cited by title and date for retrieval via RBI notification search.

Programme and independent assessment1 January 2021

SWIFT launched the Customer Security Programme in 2016. Connected organisations attest annually against the Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF, revised yearly), and from 2021 an independent assessment became mandatory for attestations rather than pure self-attestation.

Source: SWIFT — Customer Security Programme (official) · verified 2026-08-01

2019 revision publication30 October 2019

ISO 22301:2019 (business continuity management systems) was published 30 October 2019, replacing the 2012 first edition.

Source: ISO 22301:2019 (iso.org) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: iso.org blocks automated verification; date corroborated across certification bodies.

Payment system data storage in India6 October 2018

RBI circular DPSS.CO.OD No.2785/06.08.005/2017-2018 (6 April 2018) requires payment system providers to store the entire data relating to their payment systems only in India, with compliance within six months (by October 2018). End-to-end transaction data is covered.

Source: Reserve Bank of India (circular DPSS.CO.OD No.2785/06.08.005/2017-2018) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Circular number cited for retrieval via RBI's notification search; we deliberately avoid deep-linking RBI's session-bound URLs.

Application date25 May 2018

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 entered into force 24 May 2016 and has applied across all EU member states since 25 May 2018. Breach notification to the supervisory authority is required without undue delay and, where feasible, within 72 hours (Art. 33).

Source: GDPR — official text (EUR-Lex 2016/679) · verified 2026-08-01

Cyber Security Framework issuance1 May 2017

The Saudi Central Bank (SAMA) issued its Cyber Security Framework v1.0 in May 2017, applying to SAMA-regulated banks, insurers and finance companies; principle-based, drawing on ISO, Basel and PCI DSS.

Source: SAMA — Cyber Security Framework (official PDF) · verified 2026-08-01

Cyber Security Framework in Banks2 June 2016

RBI’s Cyber Security Framework in Banks (2 June 2016) requires scheduled commercial banks to report cyber incidents to RBI within 2 to 6 hours of detection, alongside board-approved cyber security policy, SOC capability and cyber crisis management plans.

Source: Reserve Bank of India (notification, 2 June 2016) · verified 2026-08-01

Security Rule compliance date20 April 2005

Compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule was required from 20 April 2005 for most covered entities; small health plans had until 20 April 2006.

Source: US HHS — HIPAA Security Rule · verified 2026-08-01

Chapter 3

The verified fact base — 38 entries across 22 frameworks

The registry is the raw material of this report: each entry is one fact, verified against a primary source — the Gazette PDF, the regulator’s portal, the standards body — and stamped with the date it was last checked. Entries are grouped here by framework. Anything you cite from this chapter, you can audit against its source link.

DPDP Act 2023

Enactment11 August 2023

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Act No. 22 of 2023); Presidential assent 11 August 2023; Gazette ID CG-DL-E-12082023-248045.

Source: Official Gazette text (MeitY PDF) · verified 2026-07-31

DPDP Rules 2025 notification13 November 2025

Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 notified 13 November 2025 as G.S.R. 843(E), Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II s.3(i).

Source: MeitY / PIB — DPDP Rules 2025 · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Gazette date corroborated across multiple law-firm analyses; the PIB document filename carries the press-release date (17 Nov), not the notification date.

Phase I — in force on notification13 November 2025

Provisions constituting and empowering the Data Protection Board (ss.18–26), definitions, and procedural rules took effect on 13 November 2025.

Source: DPDP Rules 2025 (phased commencement) · verified 2026-08-01

Phase II — one year from notification13 November 2026

Section 6(9) (verifiable parental consent) and section 27(1)(d) (publication duty) commence one year from notification — November 2026.

Source: DPDP Rules 2025 (phased commencement) · verified 2026-08-01

Phase III — substantive framework1 May 2027

Notice and consent standards, data fiduciary duties, children's data and data principal rights commence eighteen months from notification — May 2027. Published analyses split on 12 vs 13 May; confirm the exact day with counsel before relying on it.

Source: DPDP Rules 2025 (phased commencement) · verified 2026-08-01

Penalty ceiling1 May 2027

The Schedule to the Act caps monetary penalties at up to ₹250 crore per instance for the highest tier (failure to take reasonable security safeguards to prevent a personal data breach), with lower tiers at ₹200 crore, ₹150 crore and below; the Data Protection Board determines penalties on the facts.

Source: DPDP Act 2023, the Schedule (official Gazette text) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Amount verified directly against the Gazette PDF text ('may extend to two hundred and fifty crore rupees'). Enforcement follows the phased commencement (see dpdp-phase-3).

Breach notification timeline (Rule 7)1 May 2027

Under Rule 7 of the DPDP Rules 2025, a data fiduciary must intimate the Data Protection Board of a personal data breach without delay on becoming aware, follow with a detailed report within 72 hours (extendable by the Board), and notify affected data principals of the breach in plain language.

Source: DPDP Rules 2025, Rule 7 · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Timelines corroborated across multiple legal publishers. Enforcement follows the phased commencement (see dpdp-phase-3). Runs in parallel with CERT-In’s 6-hour incident reporting — the same incident triggers both.

Notice contents (section 5)1 May 2027

Every consent request must be accompanied or preceded by a notice informing the data principal of: (i) the personal data and the purpose of processing; (ii) the manner of exercising rights under s.6(4) (withdrawal) and s.13 (grievance redressal); and (iii) the manner of making a complaint to the Data Protection Board. For consents given before commencement, notice must follow as soon as reasonably practicable.

Source: DPDP Act 2023, section 5 (official Gazette text) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Contents verified directly against the Gazette PDF text. Notice must be available in English or any Eighth Schedule language.

CERT-In Directions

Issue and commencement28 June 2022

Directions under Section 70B(6), IT Act 2000 issued 28 April 2022; effective 28 June 2022. Apply to service providers, intermediaries, data centres, body corporates and government organisations.

Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31

Incident reporting window28 June 2022

Specified cyber incidents must be reported to CERT-In within 6 hours of noticing.

Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31

Log retention28 June 2022

ICT system logs must be maintained for a rolling 180 days, within Indian jurisdiction.

Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31

Time synchronisation28 June 2022

System clocks must be synchronised to NIC or NPL time sources.

Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31

Provider record-keeping28 June 2022

Data centres, VPS, cloud and VPN providers must register and retain accurate subscriber/customer records for 5 years after cancellation or withdrawal of service.

Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31

UIDAI (Aadhaar)

AUA / KUA audit duty

Authentication User Agencies and eKYC User Agencies must have operations audited annually (and on need) by a certified information systems auditor; the report is shared with UIDAI on request.

Source: UIDAI AUA/KUA Agreement (v4.0) · verified 2026-07-31

IRDAI (ISNP)

ISNP audit duty

Insurance Self-Network Platforms require IRDAI permission (with pre-launch security testing) and an annual audit by an auditor holding a recognised IS-audit qualification (e.g. CISA, or CA with DISA); adverse findings affecting policyholders are reported to IRDAI with an action plan.

Source: IRDAI · verified 2026-07-31

Note: Summarised from IRDAI's ISNP framework; corroborated across multiple compliance publishers.

PCI DSS

Current version

PCI DSS v4.0.1 is the current standard published by the PCI Security Standards Council.

Source: PCI SSC document library · verified 2026-08-01

v4.x lifecycle dates31 March 2025

PCI DSS v3.2.1 retired 31 March 2024. v4.0.1 (a limited revision — no requirements added or removed) was published 11 June 2024, and v4.0 retired 31 December 2024, leaving v4.0.1 the only active version. The 51 future-dated v4.x requirements became mandatory in assessments from 31 March 2025.

Source: PCI Security Standards Council (official blog) · verified 2026-08-01

OWASP ASVS

Current version1 May 2025

OWASP Application Security Verification Standard v5.0.0 (May 2025): ~350 requirements across 17 chapters, three verification levels (L1–L3).

Source: OWASP ASVS project · verified 2026-08-01

SEBI CSCRF

Issuance and compliance timeline20 August 2024

SEBI issued the Cybersecurity and Cyber Resilience Framework circular on 20 August 2024. Compliance timelines were extended more than once; for most regulated entities (excluding MIIs, KRAs and QRTAs) the final compliance date became 31 August 2025, with recurring half-yearly cyber-audit and reporting cycles thereafter.

Source: SEBI — CSCRF FAQs (official PDF, June 2025) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Extension history corroborated across law-firm analyses (circulars of 31 March 2025 and 30 June 2025).

RBI

Payment system data storage in India6 October 2018

RBI circular DPSS.CO.OD No.2785/06.08.005/2017-2018 (6 April 2018) requires payment system providers to store the entire data relating to their payment systems only in India, with compliance within six months (by October 2018). End-to-end transaction data is covered.

Source: Reserve Bank of India (circular DPSS.CO.OD No.2785/06.08.005/2017-2018) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Circular number cited for retrieval via RBI's notification search; we deliberately avoid deep-linking RBI's session-bound URLs.

IT Governance Master Direction1 April 2024

Master Direction on Information Technology Governance, Risk, Controls and Assurance Practices (RBI/DoS/2023-24/107) issued 7 November 2023; effective 1 April 2024. Requires an IT governance framework, information/cyber security policies and periodic IT risk assurance for regulated entities.

Source: Reserve Bank of India (Master Direction RBI/DoS/2023-24/107) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Direction number cited for retrieval via RBI notification search; RBI deep links are session-bound.

IT Outsourcing Master Direction1 October 2023

Master Direction on Outsourcing of Information Technology Services (RBI/2023-24/102) issued 10 April 2023; effective 1 October 2023. Governs material IT outsourcing by regulated entities, including vendor risk, audit rights and concentration risk.

Source: Reserve Bank of India (Master Direction RBI/2023-24/102) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Direction number cited for retrieval via RBI notification search.

Digital Payment Security Controls Master Direction18 February 2021

Issued 18 February 2021: minimum security standards for digital payment channels — internet banking, mobile payments and card payments — binding scheduled commercial banks, small finance banks, payments banks and card-issuing NBFCs.

Source: Reserve Bank of India (Master Direction, 18 Feb 2021) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Direction cited by title and date for retrieval via RBI notification search.

Cyber Security Framework in Banks2 June 2016

RBI’s Cyber Security Framework in Banks (2 June 2016) requires scheduled commercial banks to report cyber incidents to RBI within 2 to 6 hours of detection, alongside board-approved cyber security policy, SOC capability and cyber crisis management plans.

Source: Reserve Bank of India (notification, 2 June 2016) · verified 2026-08-01

ISO/IEC 27001

2022-revision transition deadline31 October 2025

The IAF three-year transition window for ISO/IEC 27001:2013 certificates ended 31 October 2025 — certificates not transitioned to the 2022 revision by that date lapsed.

Source: ISO/IEC 27001 (iso.org) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Deadline corroborated across accredited certification bodies (BSI, SGS, LRQA); iso.org blocks automated verification.

NIST CSF

Version 2.0 release26 February 2024

NIST released Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 on 26 February 2024 — the first major revision since 2014, adding the Govern function and broadening applicability beyond critical infrastructure.

Source: NIST (official release announcement) · verified 2026-08-01

IRDAI

Information and Cyber Security Guidelines, 202324 April 2023

IRDAI issued the Information and Cyber Security Guidelines, 2023 on 24 April 2023 — a data-centric, risk-based security framework for insurers and regulated intermediaries, superseding the 2017 guidelines.

Source: IRDAI (official document) · verified 2026-08-01

ISO/IEC 42001

Publication1 December 2023

ISO/IEC 42001:2023 — the first AI management system (AIMS) standard — was published in December 2023 by ISO/IEC.

Source: ISO/IEC 42001 (iso.org) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: iso.org blocks automated verification; publication corroborated across accredited bodies and major assurance firms.

EU AI Act

Commencement and GPAI obligations2 August 2025

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 entered into force on 1 August 2024. Governance rules and obligations for general-purpose AI (GPAI) model providers apply from 2 August 2025 (with transition for models already on the market).

Source: EU AI Act — official text (EUR-Lex 2024/1689) · verified 2026-08-01

SAMA CSF (Saudi Arabia)

Cyber Security Framework issuance1 May 2017

The Saudi Central Bank (SAMA) issued its Cyber Security Framework v1.0 in May 2017, applying to SAMA-regulated banks, insurers and finance companies; principle-based, drawing on ISO, Basel and PCI DSS.

Source: SAMA — Cyber Security Framework (official PDF) · verified 2026-08-01

NCA ECC (Saudi Arabia)

Essential Cybersecurity Controls versions1 January 2024

Saudi Arabia's National Cybersecurity Authority first issued the Essential Cybersecurity Controls as ECC-1:2018; the updated ECC-2:2024 restructures the framework into 4 domains, 28 subdomains and 108 main controls, binding government entities and critical-infrastructure operators.

Source: National Cybersecurity Authority (Saudi Arabia) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: ECC-2:2024 structure corroborated across multiple assurance publishers; the NCA portal hosts the controlled document.

CMMC (US DoD)

Programme and acquisition rule dates10 November 2025

The CMMC Program rule (32 CFR Part 170) was published 15 October 2024 and took effect 16 December 2024. The acquisition rule (48 CFR) took effect 10 November 2025, starting a phased rollout that adds CMMC requirements to DoD contracts in four annual phases.

Source: US Federal Register — CMMC Program rule (32 CFR 170) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: 48 CFR effective date corroborated across defence-contracting counsel and assessor publications.

UAE PDPL

Enactment and effect2 January 2022

UAE Federal Decree-Law No. 45 of 2021 on the Protection of Personal Data was issued in 2021 and came into effect on 2 January 2022. The DIFC and ADGM financial free zones run their own data-protection regimes in place of the federal law.

Source: UAE legislation portal / official summaries · verified 2026-08-01

SWIFT CSP

Programme and independent assessment1 January 2021

SWIFT launched the Customer Security Programme in 2016. Connected organisations attest annually against the Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF, revised yearly), and from 2021 an independent assessment became mandatory for attestations rather than pure self-attestation.

Source: SWIFT — Customer Security Programme (official) · verified 2026-08-01

Qatar NIA (NCSA)

National Information Assurance Policy version1 May 2023

Qatar's National Cyber Security Agency mandates the National Information Assurance Policy for government entities and critical infrastructure; the current revision is v2.1 (May 2023), superseding v2.0.

Source: NCSA Qatar (official portal) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: Version and date corroborated across Qatar-focused GRC publishers; the NCSA portal hosts the controlled document.

GDPR

Application date25 May 2018

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 entered into force 24 May 2016 and has applied across all EU member states since 25 May 2018. Breach notification to the supervisory authority is required without undue delay and, where feasible, within 72 hours (Art. 33).

Source: GDPR — official text (EUR-Lex 2016/679) · verified 2026-08-01

HIPAA (US)

Security Rule compliance date20 April 2005

Compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule was required from 20 April 2005 for most covered entities; small health plans had until 20 April 2006.

Source: US HHS — HIPAA Security Rule · verified 2026-08-01

ISO 22301

2019 revision publication30 October 2019

ISO 22301:2019 (business continuity management systems) was published 30 October 2019, replacing the 2012 first edition.

Source: ISO 22301:2019 (iso.org) · verified 2026-08-01

Note: iso.org blocks automated verification; date corroborated across certification bodies.

Chapter 4

PCI DSS v4.0.1 — all twelve requirements

PCI DSS v4.0.1 (June 2024) is now the only assessable version — v4.0 retired at the end of 2024 and the future-dated requirements became mandatory on 31 March 2025. What follows is each requirement decoded three ways: the controls that decide the assessment, the failure patterns QSA engagements actually produce, and the evidence that survives sampling. Control numbers cite the standard so every claim can be checked against it.

Requirement 1: Install and Maintain Network Security Controls

Firewalls became "network security controls" in v4 — the requirement now covers any technology that polices traffic between networks, including cloud security groups. What the assessor tests is whether every path into and out of the CDE is known, restricted and reviewed.

1.2.3–1.2.4
Current network + data-flow diagrams

An accurate network diagram and a separate account-data-flow diagram, kept current. The first artefacts an assessor opens; stale diagrams cascade into scoping findings.

1.2.5
All allowed services, protocols and ports approved

Every permitted service and port needs an identified business need and approval. "Any-any" rules are indefensible under this control.

1.2.7
NSC configurations reviewed every six months

Rulesets and security-group configurations are reviewed at least once every six months to confirm relevance and tightness.

1.3.1–1.3.2
CDE inbound and outbound traffic restricted

Traffic to and from the CDE is limited to what is necessary — and everything else is denied, not just "not configured".

1.4.2
Inbound from untrusted networks terminated

Direct inbound traffic from untrusted networks to the CDE is prohibited; connections terminate in a controlled boundary first.

1.5.1
Devices that touch both worlds are controlled

Computing devices that connect to untrusted networks AND the CDE (laptops, jump hosts) need their own security controls — the control that catches split-tunnel VPNs.

"Segmentation" that has never been tested

A VLAN is not segmentation until a penetration test proves isolation (11.4.5). Flat networks discovered at assessment time re-scope the whole engagement.

Cloud security groups nobody reviews

v4 explicitly includes cloud NSCs. Six-monthly ruleset reviews (1.2.7) apply to AWS/Azure security groups exactly as to firewalls — most first-year cloud programmes miss this.

Outbound left open

1.3.2 restricts egress from the CDE too. Unrestricted outbound is both a finding and the exfiltration path in real breaches.

Diagrams updated only for the audit

If the diagram was last touched the week before the assessment, the assessor will test its accuracy against reality — and use discrepancies to expand sampling.

Requirement 2: Apply Secure Configurations to All System Components

Requirement 2 is the hardening requirement: vendor defaults die here. The assessor compares your running configurations against your own hardening standard — so the standard must exist, map to an accepted benchmark, and actually be applied.

2.2.1
Configuration standards for all component types

Documented hardening standards covering every system type in scope, consistent with industry benchmarks (CIS, vendor guides) and kept current as vulnerabilities emerge.

2.2.2
Vendor default accounts changed or removed

Default accounts and passwords are changed, disabled or removed before deployment — on servers, network devices, POS terminals, HSMs and appliances alike.

2.2.4
Only necessary services, protocols and daemons

Everything not required for the component’s function is removed or disabled — the control behind "reduce the attack surface".

2.2.5
Insecure services documented and mitigated

Where an insecure service must run, the business justification and additional mitigations are documented.

2.2.7
Non-console admin access encrypted

All non-console administrative access uses strong cryptography — SSH and HTTPS, never telnet or plain HTTP, including appliance web consoles.

2.3.1
Wireless defaults changed

Wireless environments connected to the CDE change all wireless vendor defaults — keys, SNMP strings, passwords, firmware defaults.

A hardening "policy" but no benchmark mapping

A one-page policy saying "systems shall be hardened" fails 2.2.1. The standard must specify settings per platform, traceable to CIS or vendor baselines.

Defaults surviving on appliances and POS devices

Servers get hardened; the HSM, printer, POS terminal or load balancer keeps admin/admin. Requirement 2 applies to every system component in scope.

Default SNMP community strings

"public/private" strings on network devices are a classic 2.2.2 finding that internal vulnerability scans should have caught quarters earlier.

Telnet or HTTP management "temporarily" enabled

2.2.7 has no temporary exception — unencrypted admin channels are findings the day the assessor sees them.

Requirement 3: Protect Stored Account Data

The requirement with the sharpest teeth: sensitive authentication data must not exist after authorisation, and stored PAN must be unreadable. v4 tightened hashing — a plain hash of PAN no longer counts. Most Requirement 3 findings are data the organisation did not know it had.

3.2.1
Storage minimised by policy and by deletion

Account data storage is kept to the minimum required, with defined retention and a quarterly (or risk-based) process that finds and securely deletes data past retention.

3.3.1
SAD never stored after authorisation

Full track data, card verification codes and PINs/PIN blocks must not be retained after authorisation — even encrypted (3.3.1.1–3.3.1.3). Issuers have a narrow, justified exception.

3.4.1
PAN masked when displayed

Displayed PAN shows at most BIN + last four; only roles with documented need see more.

3.5.1
Stored PAN rendered unreadable

One-way keyed cryptographic hashes, truncation, tokens or strong encryption. v4.0.1 note: hashes must be KEYED (3.5.1.1) — an unsalted/unkeyed SHA-256 of PAN fails.

3.5.1.2
Disk-level encryption is not enough

Full-disk/transparent encryption alone renders PAN unreadable only on removable media; on servers it must be supplemented by another 3.5.1 method.

3.6–3.7
Key management lifecycle

Documented key-management: generation, distribution, storage (fewest custodians, split knowledge/dual control for clear-text components), rotation at cryptoperiod end, and retirement.

PAN hiding in logs, traces and exports

Debug logs, crash dumps, CSV exports and ticket attachments are where discovery scans find PAN. If you have not run a data-discovery scan, the assessor’s will be the first — the wrong first.

"We encrypt the disk" as the whole answer

TDE/BitLocker on a running database server does not satisfy 3.5.1 by itself (3.5.1.2). Column-level encryption, tokenisation or keyed hashing is still needed.

CVV retained "for recurring billing"

Verification codes may never be stored after authorisation — recurring billing uses credentials-on-file authorisation, not stored CVV. This one finding can end an assessment.

Key custodians without dual control

One admin who can reconstruct a clear-text key alone violates split-knowledge/dual-control expectations for manual key operations (3.7.6).

Requirement 4: Protect Cardholder Data with Strong Cryptography During Transmission

Short but unforgiving: PAN over open or public networks travels under strong cryptography, and v4 added a certificate inventory so "we use TLS" becomes provable. The findings live at the edges — legacy endpoints, wireless, and people emailing card numbers.

4.2.1
Strong cryptography on open/public networks

PAN transmissions over open networks use strong cryptography with trusted keys and certificates, accepting no downgrade to insecure versions (TLS 1.2+ in practice).

4.2.1.1
Inventory of trusted keys and certificates

A maintained inventory of the keys and certs protecting PAN in transit — issuer, expiry, strength. New in v4, fully effective 31 March 2025.

4.2.1.2
Wireless transmitting PAN uses strong crypto

Wireless networks carrying PAN use industry best-practice authentication and transmission encryption — WEP/WPA legacy modes are automatic findings.

4.2.2
PAN secured in end-user messaging

PAN sent via email, chat or SMS must be protected with strong cryptography — in practice: blocked by DLP and replaced with secure channels.

TLS 1.0/1.1 still answering on legacy endpoints

External scans find the forgotten API host or callback URL negotiating old TLS. Configuration must refuse downgrade, not just prefer 1.2.

Self-signed and expired certificates untracked

Without the 4.2.1.1 inventory, cert expiry becomes an outage AND a finding. The inventory is now the evidence of control.

Card numbers in support email

Customers email PANs; agents forward them. Without DLP quarantine + a redaction procedure, this is a live 4.2.2 failure and a Requirement 3 storage problem in mailboxes.

Requirement 5: Protect All Systems and Networks from Malicious Software

v4 modernised the old "antivirus" requirement: coverage decisions must be justified, scan frequency can be risk-based — and anti-phishing controls are now mandatory. The classic failure is the fleet of Linux servers exempted years ago with no documented evaluation.

5.2.1
Anti-malware on all commonly-affected systems

Every system component commonly affected by malware runs an anti-malware solution.

5.2.3
Exempted systems periodically re-evaluated

Components deemed "not commonly affected" are listed and re-evaluated at a frequency set by targeted risk analysis — the exemption must be earned repeatedly, not inherited.

5.3.2
Real-time or periodic scans, risk-based frequency

The solution performs real-time protection, continuous behavioural analysis, or periodic scans at a TRA-defined frequency (5.3.2.1).

5.3.3
Removable media scanned

Removable media gets scanned or continuously protected when connected — USB remains a live infection path in POS and warehouse environments.

5.3.5
Users cannot disable protection

Anti-malware cannot be disabled or altered by users except case-by-case with management authorisation for a limited period.

5.4.1
Anti-phishing controls (new in v4)

Processes and automated mechanisms detect and protect personnel against phishing attacks — DMARC/SPF/DKIM, link/attachment filtering, plus the awareness side in 12.6.3.1. Fully effective 31 March 2025.

Linux/Unix exempted with no evaluation on file

5.2.3 demands a documented, periodically refreshed justification. "Linux doesn’t get viruses" from 2019 is a finding, not an evaluation.

No technical anti-phishing layer

Awareness training alone does not satisfy 5.4.1 — the control asks for mechanisms: email authentication, filtering, link protection.

Local admins can kill the agent

If endpoint users can stop the service, 5.3.5 fails regardless of how good the console dashboard looks.

Requirement 6: Develop and Maintain Secure Systems and Software

Two disciplines in one requirement: fixing known vulnerabilities fast, and not shipping new ones. v4 added the controls e-commerce breaches begged for — an authoritative inventory of payment-page scripts and automated protection for public web applications.

6.2.1–6.2.4
Secure SDLC with trained developers

Bespoke software is built to a documented secure SDLC; developers train in secure coding annually (6.2.2); code is reviewed before release (6.2.3); engineering techniques address common attack classes (6.2.4).

6.3.1
Vulnerability intelligence process

New vulnerabilities are identified via industry sources and risk-ranked — the feed that drives both patching and scanning.

6.3.3
Critical patches within one month

Critical/high security patches installed within one month of release; all others within a TRA-defined window.

6.4.2
Automated protection for public web apps

Public-facing web applications sit behind an automated technical solution that detects and prevents web attacks (in practice a WAF in blocking mode) — mandatory since 31 March 2025, replacing the old "review or WAF" choice.

6.4.3
Payment-page scripts authorised and inventoried

Every script on payment pages is authorised, integrity-assured and inventoried with written justification — the anti-Magecart control, new in v4.

6.5.1–6.5.6
Change control end to end

Changes follow documented procedures: impact, approval, testing, rollback — and pre-production data/accounts never travel to production.

No payment-page script inventory

E-commerce entities routinely miss 6.4.3 — tag managers and third-party scripts on checkout with no inventory, justification or integrity monitoring.

WAF in monitor-only mode

6.4.2 requires detect AND prevent. A WAF that only alerts fails the control since the March 2025 date.

Patch SLA unmeasured

A policy saying 30 days without a report proving it invites sampling — and sampled hosts rarely cooperate.

Live PAN in the test environment

6.5.5 prohibits production PAN in pre-production; masked or synthetic data only.

Requirement 7: Restrict Access to System Components and Cardholder Data by Business Need to Know

Requirement 7 is the access-model requirement: who may see what, and why. v4 added the discipline that was always implied — semi-annual reviews of all user accounts and explicit governance of application/system account privileges.

7.2.1–7.2.2
Access model on least privilege

An access-control model defines access needs per role; assignments grant the least privilege necessary for the job.

7.2.3
Privileges require documented approval

Required privileges are approved by authorised personnel — the paper trail behind every grant.

7.2.4
All user accounts reviewed every six months

New in v4: every user account and its privileges reviewed at least semi-annually, with remediation of inappropriate access. Fully effective 31 March 2025.

7.2.5
Application/system account privileges governed

Service-account privileges are assigned least-privilege and reviewed at a TRA-defined frequency (7.2.5.1) — new in v4.

7.3.1–7.3.3
Access control system, default deny

An access-control system covers all components, enforces per-role permissions, and is set to deny-all by default.

No semi-annual access review

The single most common v4 gap in year one: 7.2.4 needs evidence of the review itself — account listings, reviewer sign-off, and the removals that resulted.

Access via ever-growing AD groups

Nested groups accumulated over years make least-privilege unprovable. The assessor asks "why does this role have this?" — the model must answer.

Service accounts with domain admin

7.2.5 exists precisely for the integration account granted DA in 2019. Least privilege applies to non-humans too.

Requirement 8: Identify Users and Authenticate Access

The requirement most changed by v4 — MFA now applies to ALL access into the cardholder data environment, not just remote logins. Here is what each control demands, the evidence a QSA actually accepts, and where first-year programmes fail.

8.2.1
Unique IDs for every user

All users get a unique ID before access to system components or cardholder data. Shared/generic accounts are the first thing an assessor greps for.

8.2.8
15-minute idle timeout

Sessions idle for more than 15 minutes require re-authentication. Applies to consoles, jump hosts and admin panels inside the CDE.

8.3.4
Lockout after 10 attempts

Invalid attempts limited to 10 or fewer; lockout for at least 30 minutes or until identity is confirmed.

8.3.6
12-character minimum passwords

Passwords/passphrases require at least 12 characters (or 8 if the system cannot support 12 — document why), with both letters and numbers.

8.3.9
90-day rotation OR dynamic analysis

If passwords are the only factor, change every 90 days — or analyse account security posture dynamically in real time. MFA everywhere removes this treadmill.

8.4.2
MFA for ALL access into the CDE

New teeth in v4: MFA applies to all access into the cardholder data environment, not just remote or admin. Fully effective as a future-dated requirement since 31 March 2025.

8.4.3
MFA for all remote network access

Every remote access session originating outside the entity network — staff, admins and third parties alike.

8.5.1
MFA that resists replay & bypass

MFA systems must not be susceptible to replay, cannot be bypassed by any user without documented management exception, and use at least two different factor types.

8.6.1–8.6.3
Interactive use of system/service accounts

Application and service accounts that can be used interactively need management approval, individual accountability and protection of embedded passwords/keys.

MFA scoped only to remote access

v4.0.1 requirement 8.4.2 extends MFA to all CDE access — internal console logins included. Programmes that certified under v3.2.1 and never re-scoped fail here first.

Shared admin accounts "for the firewall"

Network devices are system components. A shared enable password without individual attribution violates 8.2.1/8.2.2 even if a bastion logs the session.

Service accounts with interactive login enabled

If a human can log in with it, 8.6.1 applies: documented approval, time-bound justification and accountability — or disable interactive use.

Password policy set, never evidenced

The assessor needs configuration exports (GPO, PAM policy, IdP settings) and observation, not a policy PDF. Screenshots of the actual enforced settings are the evidence.

Vendor defaults surviving on appliances

Requirement 8 intersects 2.2/2.3: default accounts on POS terminals, HSMs and appliances must be removed or rekeyed — a favourite finding in first-year assessments.

Requirement 9: Restrict Physical Access to Cardholder Data

The requirement people forget until the walkthrough: badge readers, visitor logs, media destruction — and for anyone operating card-present channels, the POI-device controls whose inspection logs assessors always ask to see.

9.2.1–9.2.4
Facility entry controls

Physical access to CDE areas is controlled and monitored — badge systems or equivalent, video or access-control mechanisms retained 90 days, console access in sensitive areas restricted.

9.3.1–9.3.4
Personnel and visitor authorisation

Physical access is authorised per role, revoked on termination; visitors are approved, escorted, identified and logged, with logs retained at least 90 days.

9.4.1–9.4.7
Media with cardholder data controlled

Physical media is secured, classified, sent only by trackable methods, approved for movement, stored securely and destroyed when no longer needed (cross-cut shred, incinerate, or secure-wipe).

9.5.1.1
POI device inventory

An up-to-date list of all point-of-interaction devices: make, model, location, serial number.

9.5.1.2
Periodic POI inspections

Devices are periodically inspected for tampering and substitution, at a frequency justified by targeted risk analysis (9.5.1.2.1).

9.5.1.3
Staff trained to spot tampering

Personnel in device environments are trained to verify technician identity, recognise tampering and report suspicious behaviour.

POI inspection "happens" but is not logged

Without dated inspection records per device, 9.5.1.2 fails — the log IS the control’s evidence.

Visitor logs with gaps

Missing sign-outs and unlogged escorts turn a formality into a finding; logs must survive a 90-day retention check.

No destruction certificates

Decommissioned drives and shredded documents need evidence — certificates of destruction or internal records with method and date.

Terminated staff badges active for weeks

9.3.1 requires prompt revocation; the assessor reconciles HR leaver lists against the badge system.

Requirement 10: Log and Monitor All Access to System Components and Cardholder Data

Requirement 10 decides whether a breach is a bad week or an existential event. v4’s change with operational bite: daily log review must use automated mechanisms — a human eyeballing syslog no longer scales or complies.

10.2.1.x
The events that must be logged

Individual user access to cardholder data, all admin actions, access to audit logs, invalid attempts, authentication changes, log initialisation/stops, and creation/deletion of system objects.

10.3.1–10.3.4
Logs protected

Audit logs readable only by need, protected from modification, backed up promptly to a central/secured location, with integrity monitoring on log files.

10.4.1 + 10.4.1.1
Daily review — automated

Security events, CDE component logs and critical-system logs reviewed daily using automated mechanisms (fully effective 31 March 2025); other logs periodically per TRA.

10.5.1
Twelve-month retention

Audit log history retained at least 12 months, with the most recent three months immediately available for analysis.

10.6.1–10.6.3
Synchronised, protected time

System clocks synchronised via time-synchronisation technology from industry-accepted sources; time data protected from unauthorised change.

10.7.2–10.7.3
Detect and respond to control failures

Failures of critical security control systems (NSCs, IDS, FIM, anti-malware, the SIEM itself) are detected, alerted and responded to promptly with documented process.

Collection without review

A SIEM full of unreviewed events fails 10.4.1 exactly as loudly as no SIEM — the evidence is triage records and tickets, not license spend.

Log sources missing from coverage

Databases holding PAN and the application tier are the classic gaps; assessors reconcile SIEM sources against the asset inventory.

Retention that quietly truncates

Storage pressure trims logs to 30-90 days; 10.5.1 requires 12 months, three immediately searchable.

Nobody watches the watchers

10.7 asks what happens when the SIEM agent, FIM or IDS dies — silence for a week is itself the finding.

Requirement 11: Test Security of Systems and Networks Regularly

The requirement that generates the calendar: quarterly scans inside and out, annual penetration tests, segmentation validation — plus v4’s newcomers, authenticated internal scanning and tamper detection on payment pages.

11.2.1
Quarterly wireless detection

Authorised and unauthorised wireless access points identified at least quarterly — rogue-AP detection even where "we have no wireless".

11.3.1 + 11.3.1.2
Quarterly internal scans — authenticated

Internal vulnerability scans at least every three months, resolving high/critical findings with rescans; scans must be authenticated (credentialled) as of 31 March 2025. Non-high/critical vulns are managed per TRA (11.3.1.1).

11.3.2
Quarterly external ASV scans

External scans by a PCI SSC Approved Scanning Vendor every three months, with passing results and rescans after failures.

11.4.2–11.4.3
Annual internal and external pentests

Penetration testing per a documented methodology at least annually and after significant change — application and network layer.

11.4.5–11.4.6
Segmentation testing

Where segmentation isolates the CDE, its effectiveness is penetration-tested at least annually — every six months for service providers.

11.6.1
Payment-page change and tamper detection

A mechanism detects unauthorised changes to payment-page HTTP headers and script contents, alerting within a TRA-defined frequency (at least weekly). New in v4, effective 31 March 2025.

Clean ASV, empty internal-scan folder

External-only scanning is half the control; 11.3.1 internal quarterly scans with rescan evidence are sampled first.

Unauthenticated internal scans

Post-March-2025, scans without credentials (where feasible) fail 11.3.1.2 — and miss most of what matters.

Pentest scope excludes segmentation

A pentest that never attempts to cross segment boundaries cannot support 11.4.5; scope language decides this before testing starts.

Nothing watching the checkout page

11.6.1 requires tamper detection on payment pages — CSP reporting, integrity monitoring or equivalent, alerting at least weekly.

Requirement 12: Support Information Security with Organizational Policies and Programs

Everything the other eleven requirements assume: policy, risk analysis, awareness, third parties, incident response. v4 moved real weight here — targeted risk analyses now justify half the standard’s frequencies, and scope must be confirmed annually in writing.

12.1.1–12.1.4
InfoSec policy, known and owned

An information-security policy established, published, reviewed annually, with security responsibility formally assigned to a CISO or equivalent.

12.3.1
Targeted risk analyses for flexible frequencies

Every control that says "per TRA" (POI inspections, scan frequencies, training cadence…) needs a documented analysis — new v4 machinery that assessors collect as a set.

12.5.2
Annual scope confirmation

PCI DSS scope documented and confirmed at least annually and on significant change — every six months for service providers (12.5.2.1). The written exercise, not an assumption.

12.6.2–12.6.3
Awareness programme with phishing content

Security awareness reviewed annually, delivered on hire and at least annually, with acknowledgement — and must address phishing/social engineering (12.6.3.1).

12.8.1–12.8.5
Third-party service providers managed

TPSP list, written agreements with responsibility acknowledgements, due diligence before engagement, annual monitoring of their PCI status, and a responsibility matrix per provider.

12.10.1–12.10.7
Incident response that has been exercised

An IR plan covering roles, communication, regulators and card brands; tested at least annually; personnel trained; and procedures for PAN discovered where it should not be (12.10.7).

TPSP list without a responsibility matrix

12.8.5 wants, per provider, which requirements they cover vs you — an AOC on file alone does not answer it.

Missing targeted risk analyses

Choosing "weekly" for a flexible control without the TRA behind it fails 12.3.1 across every control that leaned on it.

Scope exercise nobody wrote down

The annual scope confirmation (12.5.2) needs a dated artefact: data flows, people, processes, technologies, third parties.

IR plan tested never

A tabletop with attendance, scenario and lessons-learned is the minimum evidence for 12.10.2 — an unopened PDF is not a capability.

Chapter 5

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 — Annex A in four themes

The 2013-to-2022 transition ended on 31 October 2025; every certification audit now runs against the 93-control, four-theme Annex A — including the eleven controls added in 2022 that paper-migrated ISMS documentation reliably fails. Each theme below follows the same decode: key controls, failure patterns, and the note that matters for scope.

Annex A.5: Organizational Controls (37 controls)

The largest theme — 37 controls covering policy, roles, supplier risk, cloud, incident management and legal compliance. This is where the 2022 revision added the controls auditors now probe hardest: threat intelligence, cloud service security and ICT readiness for business continuity.

A.5.1
Policies for information security

A policy set approved by management, published, reviewed at planned intervals — the artefact every other control hangs from.

A.5.7
Threat intelligence (new 2022)

Information about threats collected and analysed to produce actionable intelligence — feeds, advisories (e.g. CERT-In), and evidence it changed a decision.

A.5.19–5.22
Supplier relationships

Security in supplier agreements, managing supplier service delivery, and monitoring/review/change management across the supply chain.

A.5.23
Cloud services security (new 2022)

Processes for acquiring, using, managing and exiting cloud services — selection criteria, shared-responsibility mapping, exit strategy.

A.5.24–5.28
Incident management

Planning, assessment, response, learning and evidence collection for information security incidents.

A.5.30
ICT readiness for business continuity (new 2022)

ICT continuity planned, implemented and TESTED against BC objectives — the control that links the ISMS to real DR exercises.

A.5.31–5.36
Legal, IP, records, privacy, reviews

Identifying legal/regulatory requirements (DPDP for Indian entities), protecting records and PII, and independent review of the ISMS.

Threat intelligence = a subscribed newsletter

A.5.7 evidence must show intelligence being assessed and acted on — a risk-register update, a rule change, a patch decision — not an unread inbox folder.

Cloud inventory that ends at "we use AWS"

A.5.23 expects per-service governance: which cloud services, what data, who owns the relationship, shared-responsibility matrix, exit plan.

Supplier list without security clauses

Contracts sampled by auditors routinely predate the ISMS and carry no security, breach-notification or audit-rights language (A.5.20).

Incident process that has never fired

Zero recorded incidents in a year reads as "not detecting", not "secure". Near-misses and lessons-learned records prove A.5.26/5.27 operate.

Annex A.6: People Controls (8 controls)

Eight controls, one theme: the human layer — screening, terms, awareness, discipline, remote working and reporting. Small count, but the controls auditors verify through interviews rather than documents, which is why unprepared organisations fail them in the corridor, not the audit room.

A.6.1
Screening

Background verification proportional to business requirements, data classification and perceived risks — before joining AND on role change.

A.6.2
Terms and conditions of employment

Contracts state information-security responsibilities that survive employment where relevant (confidentiality, IP, return of assets).

A.6.3
Awareness, education and training

Role-appropriate security awareness on joining and at planned intervals, with effectiveness evaluated — not just attendance captured.

A.6.4
Disciplinary process

A formalised, communicated process for security violations — the control that makes policy enforceable.

A.6.5
Responsibilities after termination

Duties that remain valid after exit are defined, communicated and enforced — paired with asset return and access revocation.

A.6.6
Confidentiality / NDA agreements

NDAs for personnel and interested parties, reviewed at planned intervals.

A.6.7
Remote working

Security measures for remote work: device controls, home-network expectations, physical protections — post-2020 this is verified, not assumed.

A.6.8
Event reporting

Personnel report observed or suspected events through an easily reachable channel, in good time — the human sensor network.

Screening claimed, evidence absent

Auditors sample joiners and ask for verification records; "HR does it" without artefacts fails A.6.1 — especially for contractors, who are routinely skipped.

Awareness = one annual slide deck

A.6.3 asks for role-relevant content and effectiveness measurement — phishing-simulation results, quiz outcomes, targeted refreshers.

Staff cannot name the reporting channel

The interview question that decides A.6.8: "you see something suspicious — what do you do?" A hesitant answer outweighs a beautiful procedure document.

Leavers keep knowledge obligations nobody told them about

A.6.5 needs exit communication evidence — a checklist item confirming post-employment duties were restated at departure.

Annex A.7: Physical Controls (14 controls)

Fourteen controls from perimeters to clear desks. The 2022 addition — physical security monitoring — formalised what assessors already expected: premises watched, not just locked. For cloud-first organisations this theme shrinks but never disappears: offices, endpoints and the paper on desks stay in scope.

A.7.1–7.2
Perimeters and entry

Defined security perimeters protecting areas with information assets; entry controlled and monitored appropriately.

A.7.3
Securing offices, rooms and facilities

Physical security designed and applied for offices and server/network rooms.

A.7.4
Physical security monitoring (new 2022)

Premises continuously monitored for unauthorised access — CCTV, intruder detection, guard processes — with retention and review defined.

A.7.6
Working in secure areas

Rules for working inside secure areas: supervision, no unauthorised recording, vacant-area lockdown.

A.7.7
Clear desk and clear screen

The rule interviews and walkthroughs test — papers, removable media and unlocked screens in shared spaces.

A.7.9
Off-premises assets

Devices and media used outside the premises protected — travel rules, home-office expectations.

A.7.10
Storage media

Media managed through its lifecycle: acquisition, use, transport and secure disposal.

A.7.14
Secure disposal or re-use of equipment

Storage verified wiped or destroyed before disposal/reuse — with records that prove it.

CCTV exists; nobody can produce retention or review evidence

A.7.4 is about monitoring as a process — retention period, who reviews, what triggers escalation — not camera count.

Server room key on a hook

Uncontrolled physical keys to secure areas defeat every badge-system control upstream (A.7.2/7.3).

Walkthrough finds passwords on monitors

Clear desk/screen (A.7.7) is the finding auditors photograph. One sticky note in a sampled bay becomes a nonconformity.

Disposed laptops with no wipe certificates

A.7.14 needs per-asset evidence — certificates or logged internal wipes reconciled against the asset register.

Annex A.8: Technological Controls (34 controls)

The engineering theme: 34 controls from endpoint protection to secure coding. Eight of the eleven controls new in 2022 live here — configuration management, information deletion, data masking, DLP, activity monitoring, web filtering and secure coding — which is why 2013-era ISMS documentation fails a 2022 audit without real uplift.

A.8.2–8.3
Privileged access & information access restriction

Privileged rights restricted and managed; access to information limited per the access-control policy — least privilege, provable.

A.8.8
Technical vulnerability management

Vulnerabilities identified, exposure evaluated, and remediated with measured timelines — scans plus SLA evidence.

A.8.9
Configuration management (new 2022)

Configurations — including security configurations — established, documented, implemented, monitored and reviewed. Hardening baselines with drift detection.

A.8.10
Information deletion (new 2022)

Information deleted when no longer required — the control that pairs with DPDP s.8(7) erasure duties for Indian entities.

A.8.11–8.12
Data masking & DLP (new 2022)

Masking per policy for sensitive data; data-leakage prevention applied to systems and channels carrying sensitive information.

A.8.15–8.16
Logging & monitoring (8.16 new 2022)

Logs produced, protected and analysed; networks/systems/applications monitored for anomalous behaviour with response.

A.8.23
Web filtering (new 2022)

Access to external websites managed to reduce exposure to malicious content.

A.8.25–8.31
Secure development lifecycle

Secure SDLC rules, requirements, architecture/engineering principles, secure coding (8.28 new), testing and environment separation.

A.8.32
Change management

Changes to information processing facilities follow the change-management procedure — with samples that prove it.

2013 documentation lightly renamed

The 2022 additions (8.9–8.12, 8.16, 8.23, 8.28) need implemented controls, not a re-mapped SoA. Auditors open with the new controls precisely because paper migrations fail there.

Vulnerability scans without remediation SLAs

A.8.8 evidence is the full loop: scan → risk evaluation → fix within defined timelines → verification. A folder of PDFs is half a control.

DLP bought, monitor-only, alerts unread

A.8.12 asks for detection AND prevention/response on real channels — sampled alerts with disposition beat a licence invoice.

No deletion evidence

A.8.10 requires demonstrable deletion when data is no longer required — retention schedule plus executed deletion records; "we keep everything" is now a nonconformity.

Chapter 6

SOC 2 — the five Trust Services categories

SOC 2 is an attestation issued by a licensed CPA firm against the AICPA Trust Services Criteria — Security is mandatory in every report; the other four categories follow the commitments you make to customers. The criteria below are decoded for the Type II reality: an observation period, sampled across months, where a control implemented late produces exceptions for every month before it.

Security (Common Criteria) (CC1–CC9) — required in every report

The mandatory category — every SOC 2 examination includes the Common Criteria, whatever else is in scope. CC1–CC5 inherit the COSO internal-control framework; CC6–CC9 carry the technical weight: access, operations, change management and vendor risk. This is ~80% of a typical SOC 2 effort.

CC1.x
Control environment

Integrity, board oversight, structure, competence and accountability — the COSO layer auditors verify through governance artefacts, org charts and HR practices.

CC2.x
Communication and information

Internal and external communication of security commitments and responsibilities — policies published, customers informed, incidents communicated.

CC3.x
Risk assessment

Objectives specified, risks identified and analysed (including fraud risk), significant change considered — a living risk register, not an annual PDF.

CC4.x
Monitoring activities

Ongoing and separate evaluations of controls, with deficiencies communicated and tracked to closure.

CC5.x
Control activities

Controls selected and deployed to mitigate risks, including over technology — the bridge from risk register to actual safeguards.

CC6.1–6.8
Logical and physical access

The largest block: access provisioning/deprovisioning, authentication, least privilege, physical access, media disposal, and protection against outside access and malware.

CC7.1–7.5
System operations

Vulnerability monitoring, anomaly detection, incident evaluation, response and recovery — with evidence the loop has actually run.

CC8.1
Change management

Infrastructure, data and software changes authorised, designed, tested, approved and implemented — sampled end to end across the period.

CC9.1–9.2
Risk mitigation and vendors

Business-disruption risk mitigation and vendor/business-partner risk management — assessments, agreements, monitoring.

Point-in-time thinking for a period report

Type II covers an observation window (commonly 6–12 months). A control implemented in month 5 of a 6-month window produces exceptions for months 1–4 — sequencing readiness matters.

Deprovisioning gaps found by sampling

The classic CC6.2/6.3 exception: leavers with active accounts days or weeks after exit. Auditors reconcile HR lists against IdP logs across the whole period.

Change tickets that skip approval or testing

CC8.1 samples changes across the period; emergency changes without retrospective approval are the most common exception in engineering-led teams.

Vendor list without risk treatment

CC9.2 needs vendor risk assessments, security terms and periodic review — a spreadsheet of names satisfies nobody.

Availability (A1)

Three criteria with heavy operational implications: capacity, environmental protections and backup, and tested recovery. In scope whenever your customer commitments include uptime — which for SaaS is nearly always. The evidence is engineering telemetry, not policy prose.

A1.1
Capacity management

Current processing capacity monitored and future demand forecast, with action when thresholds approach — dashboards, alerts and scaling decisions on record.

A1.2
Environmental protections, software, backup and recovery infrastructure

The resilience stack: environmental safeguards (largely inherited from cloud providers), backup configuration and recovery infrastructure authorised, designed and operated.

A1.3
Recovery testing

Recovery plan procedures TESTED — restore drills and DR exercises with results and lessons, not a plan that has never fired.

Backups configured, restores never proven

A1.3 is the criterion that fails: auditors want dated restore-test evidence. An untested backup is a hope, not a control.

SLA commitments the monitoring cannot measure

If you commit 99.9% to customers, evidence must show you measure it — uptime reporting tied to the commitment, with incident impact recorded.

"AWS handles it" without the inherited-control mapping

Cloud inheritance is legitimate but must be documented: which A1.2 protections come from the provider (their SOC 2), which remain yours.

Processing Integrity (PI1)

The category for systems whose value IS the correctness of processing — payments, payroll, billing, data pipelines. Five criteria trace the data path: objectives, inputs, processing, outputs and storage. Scoped in when customers rely on your processing being complete, valid, accurate and timely.

PI1.1
Processing objectives and specifications

Definitions of the data processed and processing specifications communicated — what "correct" means, written down.

PI1.2
Inputs

System inputs complete and accurate — validation, rejection handling, reconciliation at the point of entry.

PI1.3
Processing

System processing complete, valid, accurate, timely and authorised — job monitoring, error queues, exception handling with evidence of resolution.

PI1.4
Outputs

Outputs complete, accurate, distributed only to intended recipients — reconciliations and delivery controls.

PI1.5
Storage of inputs/items in processing

Items stored during processing protected and retained per specification, supporting reprocessing where needed.

Error queues nobody empties

PI1.3 samples exception handling: failed jobs and dead-letter queues with no documented resolution are direct exceptions.

Reconciliation "in people’s heads"

Input/output completeness needs recorded reconciliations — counts, totals, control files — not an engineer’s assurance that the pipeline is fine.

Scoping PI when nobody asked for it

PI adds real evidence burden; include it when customer commitments depend on processing correctness, not because it sounds thorough.

Confidentiality (C1)

Two criteria, deceptively simple: identify and protect confidential information, then dispose of it provably. Scoped in when contracts carry confidentiality commitments — which is most B2B paper. The work is classification discipline and deletion evidence.

C1.1
Identify and protect confidential information

Confidential information identified (classification) and protected through its lifecycle — access limits, encryption, handling rules tied to the classification.

C1.2
Disposal

Confidential information disposed of when retention ends — executed deletion with records, including at contract termination when customers ask for it.

Classification policy without labels in practice

C1.1 fails when sampled repositories show no evidence anyone applies the classification — the policy exists, the discipline does not.

Contract-exit deletion promised, never evidenced

Customer offboarding that contractually promises deletion needs execution records per tenant — the C1.2 sample auditors now routinely take.

Confidential data sprawling into analytics and tickets

Copies in BI tools, support tickets and spreadsheets escape the protection the primary store has — discovery before the auditor’s walkthrough finds it for you.

Privacy (P1–P8)

The largest optional category: eight criteria tracking personal information from notice to enforcement. Scoped in when you make privacy commitments about personal data you collect directly. For Indian entities the mapping to DPDP duties is close — notice, consent, retention, access and erasure all have statutory twins.

P1.1
Notice

Notice to data subjects about privacy practices — what is collected, why, how used and retained.

P2.1
Choice and consent

Choices communicated and consent obtained for collection, use and disclosure — the DPDP s.6 twin.

P3.1–P3.2
Collection

Personal information collected consistent with objectives; explicit consent where required for sensitive data.

P4.1–P4.3
Use, retention and disposal

Use limited to purposes; retention limited; disposal executed — the criteria that pair with DPDP s.8(7) erasure duties.

P5.1–P5.2
Access

Data subjects can access and correct their personal information.

P6.x
Disclosure to third parties

Disclosures with consent, processor commitments, breach notification obligations — the largest P-block.

P7.1
Quality

Personal information kept accurate, complete and relevant.

P8.1
Monitoring and enforcement

Complaints and disputes addressed; compliance monitored.

Scoping Privacy when you are a processor

Privacy criteria centre on commitments to data subjects — usually the controller’s role. Processors typically serve privacy through Confidentiality + contractual commitments; scoping P1–P8 wrongly doubles the work.

Notice and consent that drifted from reality

The privacy notice promises X; telemetry collects Y. Auditors read the notice and trace actual flows — the gap is the exception.

Deletion rights promised, unexecutable

P4.3/P5 commitments require operational deletion/access workflows with records — the same machinery DPDP requires, which is why building it once for both is the efficient path.

Chapter 7

NIST CSF 2.0 — six functions

CSF 2.0 (26 February 2024) matters in India for a specific reason: SEBI’s CSCRF is structured on its functions, and RBI and IRDAI expectations map onto them cleanly. A CSF profile is the closest thing to a common backbone across Indian regulatory conversations. The framework is voluntary guidance — profiles, not certificates — and each function below is decoded to the category level.

Govern (GV)

The function CSF 2.0 added — and put first. Governance moved from a category buried in Identify to the function that wraps all others: context, risk strategy, roles, policy, oversight and supply chain. If your CSF 1.1 profile predates 2024, this is where the rewrite starts.

GV.OC
Organizational context

Mission, stakeholder expectations, legal and regulatory requirements understood — the inputs that make the rest of the profile YOURS rather than generic.

GV.RM
Risk management strategy

Risk appetite and tolerance established, communicated and used in decisions — the artefact examiners and boards actually ask for.

GV.RR
Roles, responsibilities and authorities

Cybersecurity roles defined, resourced and communicated — including leadership accountability.

GV.PO
Policy

Cybersecurity policy established, communicated and enforced, refreshed as risks and requirements change.

GV.OV
Oversight

Risk-management performance reviewed and used to adjust strategy — metrics with a feedback loop, not a dashboard nobody reads.

GV.SC
Cybersecurity supply chain risk management

Supplier cyber risk integrated into wider risk management: criteria, contracts, monitoring, incident coordination — heavily expanded in 2.0.

CSF 1.1 profiles lightly relabelled

Govern is not a rename — GV.SC and GV.OV contain expectations 1.1 never had. Mapping old ID.GV rows across and calling it 2.0 collapses under review.

Risk appetite that exists only in the audit binder

GV.RM is tested by decisions: can anyone show a choice that changed because of the stated tolerance?

Supply chain treated as procurement paperwork

GV.SC expects cyber criteria in selection, contractual obligations, and coordination when a supplier has an incident.

Identify (ID)

You cannot protect what you have not enumerated. Identify holds asset management, risk assessment and — new emphasis in 2.0 — improvement. Its quality decides whether every downstream function operates on reality or on an outdated spreadsheet.

ID.AM
Asset management

Hardware, software, services, data and their flows inventoried and prioritised by criticality — including the cloud and SaaS estate that shadow IT grows.

ID.RA
Risk assessment

Vulnerabilities and threats identified, likelihood and impact analysed, risk responses chosen and tracked — with intelligence feeding it.

ID.IM
Improvement

Lessons from assessments, tests, incidents and exercises drive improvement plans — the category that turns findings into change.

The inventory is the CMDB nobody trusts

ID.AM evidence is a reconciled inventory — discovery scans vs records vs finance — not a stale export. Unknown assets void downstream controls.

Risk register without owners or movement

ID.RA expects risks with owners, responses and review dates; a register whose entries have not changed in a year documents a process that stopped.

Data flows undocumented

2.0 emphasises data and its flows (ID.AM); DPDP and sectoral rules ask for the same map — one exercise serves both.

Protect (PR)

The engineering function: identity and access, awareness, data security, platform security and infrastructure resilience. CSF 2.0 reorganised it — platform security (PR.PS) and infrastructure resilience (PR.IR) are the categories where 1.1-era profiles have the most unmapped ground.

PR.AA
Identity management, authentication and access control

Identities managed lifecycle-wide, authenticated proportionally to risk (MFA), access granted least-privilege and reviewed.

PR.AT
Awareness and training

Personnel and privileged/specialised roles trained for their responsibilities — role-based, refreshed, measured.

PR.DS
Data security

Data-at-rest and in-transit protected, backups created, protected and tested — confidentiality, integrity and availability together.

PR.PS
Platform security

Configuration management, software maintenance/patching, logging enabled, software integrity — the hardening category (new arrangement in 2.0).

PR.IR
Technology infrastructure resilience

Networks and environments protected and built to resist and recover — segmentation, capacity, resilience mechanisms.

MFA coverage asserted, not enumerated

PR.AA holds up only when every access path is listed with its authentication strength — the same exercise PCI 8.4.2 forces, reusable here.

Backups that have never restored

PR.DS includes tested backups; an untested backup is the finding every framework writes the same way.

Hardening without drift detection

PR.PS expects configurations managed over time — baseline plus monitoring, not a golden image from two years ago.

Detect (DE)

Two categories with one question behind them: would you know? Continuous monitoring across networks, endpoints, personnel activity and services — and the analysis discipline that turns anomalies into declared incidents fast enough to matter.

DE.CM
Continuous monitoring

Networks, computing environments, personnel activity and external service providers monitored to find adverse events — coverage matched to the asset inventory.

DE.AE
Adverse event analysis

Anomalies analysed, correlated across sources, impact estimated, incidents declared against defined criteria — the pipeline from alert to declaration.

Monitoring the network, missing the SaaS

DE.CM in 2.0 explicitly includes external service providers; audit logs from critical SaaS left uncollected is the modern blind spot.

No incident-declaration criteria

DE.AE expects defined thresholds for when an anomaly becomes an incident; without them, response starts late and inconsistently.

Alert fatigue as steady state

A queue with thousands of unreviewed alerts is documentation of detection NOT operating — tuning records are part of the evidence.

Respond (RS)

Four categories covering the hours that decide breach outcomes: incident management, analysis, communication and mitigation. For Indian entities this function carries statutory weight — CERT-In’s 6-hour reporting window and sectoral timelines live inside RS.CO.

RS.MA
Incident management

Response executed per plan once an incident is declared: triage, categorisation, prioritisation, escalation.

RS.AN
Incident analysis

Investigation to establish what happened and what is affected; evidence collected and preserved to support decisions and any legal process.

RS.CO
Incident response reporting and communication

Internal and external stakeholders informed per obligations — for India: CERT-In within 6 hours for notified incident types, plus RBI/SEBI/IRDAI and DPDP breach duties as applicable.

RS.MI
Incident mitigation

Incidents contained and eradicated — with the actions recorded as they happen, not reconstructed later.

Regulatory clocks discovered mid-incident

RS.CO fails when the 6-hour CERT-In window is looked up during the breach; the reporting matrix (who, what, when, how) must pre-exist and be drilled.

Evidence destroyed by the fix

Rebuilding a compromised host before imaging it satisfies RS.MI while destroying RS.AN — the runbook must sequence preservation before eradication where feasible.

Plans that have never met a scenario

Tabletops with lessons-learned records are the difference between a plan and a capability; every framework samples them.

Recover (RC)

The shortest function with the most expensive failures: executing recovery plans and communicating during restoration. Recovery is where untested backups, undocumented dependencies and silent stakeholders turn a contained incident into a prolonged outage.

RC.RP
Incident recovery plan execution

Recovery executed per plan: restoration priority by criticality, integrity of backups verified BEFORE restoration, systems confirmed clean and operational.

RC.CO
Incident recovery communication

Restoration progress communicated to internal and external stakeholders — customers, regulators, partners — with consistent messaging.

Restoring the compromise along with the data

RC.RP includes verifying backup integrity and system cleanliness before restoration — restoring from a backup taken after initial compromise re-infects the environment.

Recovery order improvised

Without criticality-driven restoration priorities (fed by ID.AM), teams restore what is easy instead of what the business needs first.

Silence during restoration

RC.CO failures compound reputational damage; stakeholders fill communication vacuums with worst-case assumptions.

Chapter 8

Build once, comply many times

Read chapters 4 through 7 side by side and the overlap is the story. MFA scoped properly once satisfies PCI 8.4.2, feeds ISO A.5/A.8 access evidence, answers SOC 2 CC6 and lands inside CSF PR.AA. A tested backup-and-restore discipline is PCI 12.10/ISO A.5.30/SOC 2 A1.3/CSF RC.RP — one exercise, four evidence trails. A retention-and-deletion machine built for DPDP section 8(7) is the same machinery SOC 2 C1.2 and P4.3 sample and ISO A.8.10 now demands. The organisations that suffer are the ones that run five parallel programmes with five spreadsheets; the ones that don’t, build the control once and map the evidence outward.

The sequencing that follows from the dates: statutory obligations first (DPDP, CERT-In, sector regulators — they carry penalties and clocks), the revenue-driven attestations second (PCI, ISO, SOC 2 — they carry deals), and the profile framework (CSF) as the connective tissue that keeps the map coherent. The registry’s timeline in chapter 2 is effectively that plan with dates attached.

Continuous evidence is what makes the single-programme model real rather than aspirational — controls monitored between audits, evidence collected as a by-product of operations, gaps visible before the assessor finds them. That operating model is what CyberSigma’s SigmaTrust platform exists to run; the argument for it, however, stands on the framework text alone.

Chapter 9

Method, sources and how to cite this report

Every factual claim in chapters 2–3 traces to a primary source linked at the claim: Gazette notifications, regulator publications, standards-body documents. Framework decodes in chapters 4–7 cite control identifiers against the named versions (PCI DSS v4.0.1; ISO/IEC 27001:2022; AICPA TSC 2017 with 2022 points of focus; NIST CSF 2.0) so any statement can be checked against the standard itself. Where sources conflict, the conflict is stated in the entry note.

This report is compiled from the open India Compliance Registry (v1.6.0, updated 2026-08-01) and CyberSigma’s framework series data modules — the same data that renders the website, which is why report and site cannot diverge. The registry changelog is append-only; corrections are recorded, never silently applied. The full editorial policy is published at cybersigmacs.com/editorial-policy/.

Cite as: CyberSigma Consulting Services, “The India Compliance Reference 2026”, registry v1.6.0, cybersigmacs.com/research/india-compliance-reference-2026/. Registry content is CC BY 4.0 — reuse with attribution. Found an error? Report it via the contact page; confirmed corrections are appended to the registry changelog.

← CyberSigma Research · India Compliance Registry · Deadlines tracker