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
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.
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
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
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
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).
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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
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
System clocks must be synchronised to NIC or NPL time sources.
Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31
ICT system logs must be maintained for a rolling 180 days, within Indian jurisdiction.
Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31
Specified cyber incidents must be reported to CERT-In within 6 hours of noticing.
Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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).
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.
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
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
Specified cyber incidents must be reported to CERT-In within 6 hours of noticing.
Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31
ICT system logs must be maintained for a rolling 180 days, within Indian jurisdiction.
Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31
System clocks must be synchronised to NIC or NPL time sources.
Source: CERT-In Directions (official PDF) · verified 2026-07-31
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)
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
1.3.2 restricts egress from the CDE too. Unrestricted outbound is both a finding and the exfiltration path in real breaches.
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.
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.
Servers get hardened; the HSM, printer, POS terminal or load balancer keeps admin/admin. Requirement 2 applies to every system component in scope.
"public/private" strings on network devices are a classic 2.2.2 finding that internal vulnerability scans should have caught quarters earlier.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
External scans find the forgotten API host or callback URL negotiating old TLS. Configuration must refuse downgrade, not just prefer 1.2.
Without the 4.2.1.1 inventory, cert expiry becomes an outage AND a finding. The inventory is now the evidence of control.
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.
5.2.3 demands a documented, periodically refreshed justification. "Linux doesn’t get viruses" from 2019 is a finding, not an evaluation.
Awareness training alone does not satisfy 5.4.1 — the control asks for mechanisms: email authentication, filtering, link protection.
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.
E-commerce entities routinely miss 6.4.3 — tag managers and third-party scripts on checkout with no inventory, justification or integrity monitoring.
6.4.2 requires detect AND prevent. A WAF that only alerts fails the control since the March 2025 date.
A policy saying 30 days without a report proving it invites sampling — and sampled hosts rarely cooperate.
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.
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.
Nested groups accumulated over years make least-privilege unprovable. The assessor asks "why does this role have this?" — the model must answer.
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.
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.
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.
If a human can log in with it, 8.6.1 applies: documented approval, time-bound justification and accountability — or disable interactive use.
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.
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.
Without dated inspection records per device, 9.5.1.2 fails — the log IS the control’s evidence.
Missing sign-outs and unlogged escorts turn a formality into a finding; logs must survive a 90-day retention check.
Decommissioned drives and shredded documents need evidence — certificates of destruction or internal records with method and date.
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.
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.
Databases holding PAN and the application tier are the classic gaps; assessors reconcile SIEM sources against the asset inventory.
Storage pressure trims logs to 30-90 days; 10.5.1 requires 12 months, three immediately searchable.
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.
External-only scanning is half the control; 11.3.1 internal quarterly scans with rescan evidence are sampled first.
Post-March-2025, scans without credentials (where feasible) fail 11.3.1.2 — and miss most of what matters.
A pentest that never attempts to cross segment boundaries cannot support 11.4.5; scope language decides this before testing starts.
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.
12.8.5 wants, per provider, which requirements they cover vs you — an AOC on file alone does not answer it.
Choosing "weekly" for a flexible control without the TRA behind it fails 12.3.1 across every control that leaned on it.
The annual scope confirmation (12.5.2) needs a dated artefact: data flows, people, processes, technologies, third parties.
A tabletop with attendance, scenario and lessons-learned is the minimum evidence for 12.10.2 — an unopened PDF is not a capability.
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.5.7 evidence must show intelligence being assessed and acted on — a risk-register update, a rule change, a patch decision — not an unread inbox folder.
A.5.23 expects per-service governance: which cloud services, what data, who owns the relationship, shared-responsibility matrix, exit plan.
Contracts sampled by auditors routinely predate the ISMS and carry no security, breach-notification or audit-rights language (A.5.20).
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.
Auditors sample joiners and ask for verification records; "HR does it" without artefacts fails A.6.1 — especially for contractors, who are routinely skipped.
A.6.3 asks for role-relevant content and effectiveness measurement — phishing-simulation results, quiz outcomes, targeted refreshers.
The interview question that decides A.6.8: "you see something suspicious — what do you do?" A hesitant answer outweighs a beautiful procedure document.
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.7.4 is about monitoring as a process — retention period, who reviews, what triggers escalation — not camera count.
Uncontrolled physical keys to secure areas defeat every badge-system control upstream (A.7.2/7.3).
Clear desk/screen (A.7.7) is the finding auditors photograph. One sticky note in a sampled bay becomes a nonconformity.
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.
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.
A.8.8 evidence is the full loop: scan → risk evaluation → fix within defined timelines → verification. A folder of PDFs is half a control.
A.8.12 asks for detection AND prevention/response on real channels — sampled alerts with disposition beat a licence invoice.
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.
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.
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.
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.
CC8.1 samples changes across the period; emergency changes without retrospective approval are the most common exception in engineering-led teams.
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.
A1.3 is the criterion that fails: auditors want dated restore-test evidence. An untested backup is a hope, not a control.
If you commit 99.9% to customers, evidence must show you measure it — uptime reporting tied to the commitment, with incident impact recorded.
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.
PI1.3 samples exception handling: failed jobs and dead-letter queues with no documented resolution are direct exceptions.
Input/output completeness needs recorded reconciliations — counts, totals, control files — not an engineer’s assurance that the pipeline is fine.
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 fails when sampled repositories show no evidence anyone applies the classification — the policy exists, the discipline does not.
Customer offboarding that contractually promises deletion needs execution records per tenant — the C1.2 sample auditors now routinely take.
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.
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.
The privacy notice promises X; telemetry collects Y. Auditors read the notice and trace actual flows — the gap is the exception.
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.
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.
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.
GV.RM is tested by decisions: can anyone show a choice that changed because of the stated tolerance?
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 evidence is a reconciled inventory — discovery scans vs records vs finance — not a stale export. Unknown assets void downstream controls.
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.
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 holds up only when every access path is listed with its authentication strength — the same exercise PCI 8.4.2 forces, reusable here.
PR.DS includes tested backups; an untested backup is the finding every framework writes the same way.
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 in 2.0 explicitly includes external service providers; audit logs from critical SaaS left uncollected is the modern blind spot.
DE.AE expects defined thresholds for when an anomaly becomes an incident; without them, response starts late and inconsistently.
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.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.
Rebuilding a compromised host before imaging it satisfies RS.MI while destroying RS.AN — the runbook must sequence preservation before eradication where feasible.
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 includes verifying backup integrity and system cleanliness before restoration — restoring from a backup taken after initial compromise re-infects the environment.
Without criticality-driven restoration priorities (fed by ID.AM), teams restore what is easy instead of what the business needs first.
RC.CO failures compound reputational damage; stakeholders fill communication vacuums with worst-case assumptions.
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.
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
