Why Is Europe Splitting Product Security from Service Resilience Right Now?
Europe’s regulatory landscape isn’t splitting product and service just to make life more complex-it’s an answer to a digital world where a single weak link can disrupt entire markets overnight. High-profile incidents like SolarWinds and Log4j demonstrated how supply chain vulnerabilities cascade well beyond the developer’s laptop, ricocheting through SaaS, infrastructure, and critical services in ways that no single enterprise can contain alone.
The EU’s response? Disentangle, but tightly connect. Product security-ensuring every digital component (apps, libraries, devices, firmware) is hardened, traceable, and updatable-is now distinct, but inseparable from, service resilience-the ability to maintain, adapt, and recover critical business operations when shocks hit.
We used to think security was about keeping our own house clean. Today, an overlooked supplier or aged library opens our door, no matter our policies.
For anyone responsible for risk, compliance, or revenue, this split is more than semantics. It’s operational fact. SaaS operators must show their code is robust and updated, but equally, they must evidence that their services survive incidents, can restore data, and maintain trusted delivery-under auditor scrutiny and in real time.
Two Regimes, New Realities
- NIS 2 (Network & Information Security Directive): Focuses on *service resilience*. Its about readiness, continuity, response, and post-incident review for sectors ranging from banking to healthcare to cloud.
- Cyber Resilience Act (CRA): Elevates *product security* from a box-tick to a lifecycle mandate, targeting all digital products-software, connected devices, platform as a service, anything distributed or operated in the EU.
Where previous rules often left ambiguity, this split removes doubt:
Youre responsible for every component-written, borrowed, bought, or bundled-and how it performs live.
Compliance Net: If youre developing, distributing, operating, or updating digital tech within the EU, these rules likely apply. SaaS? Device-maker? Managed service? If youre in a procurement chain, so is your exposure.
Deadlines:
- NIS 2 enforcement ramps up in Q4 2024, with local laws crystallising fast.
- CRA begins phased application through 2025–2027, but procurement and due diligence queries are live now.
Visualise the Risk: Picture an interactive map, deadlines glowing at each node: developers, suppliers, integrations, frontline digital services. Gaps anywhere create a shared vulnerability-no isolated escape route.
Book a demoWhere Does NIS 2 End and the CRA Begin?
Drawing the line between “product” and “service” is like splitting a river and its bank-technically possible, rarely clear in business life. Digital companies flow between the two: you build (product) to deliver (service), and most are viewed as both in the eyes of the law.
NIS 2 in Action:
This directive demands you prove operational resilience-continuity plans, tested backups, rapid restore capability, and demonstrable incident management.
CRA’s Focus:
By contrast, the CRA drills into the asset itself. Your compliance will be measured on SBOMs (Software Bills of Materials), update operations, security-by-design in development, and post-market surveillance to spot, fix, and declare vulnerabilities.
The distinction between product and service collapses when your auditor asks how a single code change is managed from release to live operations and eventually to user notification and fix.
Open-Source and Supplier Risk:
Both NIS 2 and CRA now require hands-on ownership, not outsourcing, of third-party and OSS risk. You must map, track, and update every piece, with SBOMs as living documents shared in audits.
You aren’t compliant just because you point fingers upstream. If your service delivers, you own every product it contains.
Imagine a layered diagram: physical product base (with SBOM/CRA layers), wrapped by operational NIS 2 structures. Each handoff-code commit, update, incident-must be tracked, logged, and defensible for compliance.
Master NIS 2 without spreadsheet chaos
Centralise risk, incidents, suppliers, and evidence in one clean platform.
Scope Overlap and the “Double Jeopardy” Risk Zone
If you build, sell, or run digital products-be it a SaaS platform, device firmware, or critical cloud service-double jeopardy isn’t a hypothetical risk; it’s daily operational reality. The zone where NIS 2 and CRA both apply is rapidly expanding, sometimes across overlapping contracts and audits.
| **Regime** | **Trigger Event** | **Your Obligation** |
|---|---|---|
| NIS 2 | “Essential/Important” service status (regulated sector, large ops) | Continuity guarantees, evidenced ops, live incident and recovery logs |
| CRA | Digital product in EU market (including SaaS, embedded/updated) | SBOMs, security-by-design, post-market monitoring, rapid vuln fix logs, update traceability |
Third-Party & Foreign Vendors:
No more plausible deniability. SBOMs must document all dependencies-commercial, open, or proprietary. Gaps or unknowns become your problem, not just your supplier’s. Regulatory expectation: If others power your service, you must prove they’re secure and updatable, or face audit findings and potential fines.
Compliance failures rarely start with a vulnerable product-they begin with unclear ownership of the evidence.
A Venn diagram-the NIS 2 and CRA circles. Where they intersect, you find every modern SaaS and digital operator in the EU, obliged to monitor, log, and own both product and service.
The New Frictions: Reporting, Workload, and Evidence in Practise
Compliance no longer lives in archived policy folders. Today, it’s an active choreography-live evidence, incident feeds, task routing, and rapid reporting across teams.
Incident Reporting:
A single security event can trigger double reporting. Breach of product logic knocks out a cloud service and exposes customer data: you must notify authorities per each law’s timeline, format, and data set. Simultaneously, you’re updating internal logs, customer comms, supplier notifications, and recovery playbooks-faster than ever before.
Team Workload:
Every discipline-execs, engineers, compliance, support, procurement-now carries recurring, auditable duties. Manual handoffs or “everyone’s job” blur accountability. Bottlenecks and missed tickets delay filings, slow responses, or spread uncertainty.
A single slow handoff now risks a regulatory breach or lost customer contract. Automation isn’t a luxury; it's your first form of resilience.
How Adaptive Companies Respond:
- Document management, SBOM, and issue tracking solutions tied to compliance dashboards.
- Automated audit packs-service and product evidence, management approvals, and incident logs made export-ready.
- Named duty assignments, timestamped actions, and automated reminders-not siloed or lost to email.
Bottom-Line:
Timely, traceable, comprehensive evidence isn’t a compliance ideal-it’s key to winning business, avoiding fines, and proving resilience when every hour and action is on the record.
Be NIS 2-ready from day one
Launch with a proven workspace and templates – just tailor, assign, and go.
Connecting the Dots: How to Build One Compliance Loop for Product and Service
Static, one-off audits can’t withstand today’s reality; NIS 2 and CRA assume a living compliance loop-constant evidence maintenance, role-mapped actions, and up-to-date registers.
The Case for Living Compliance:
- Customers and regulators both demand at-a-glance proof *now*, not just a stale certificate.
- Contracts increasingly require “auditable at any time,” making static documentation a liability.
- Outdated policies or broken SBOMs invite scrutiny, erosion of trust, and last-minute audit disasters.
It’s no longer enough to pass the audit-you must live inside it.
ISO 27001, SOC 2-Baseline, Not a Ceiling
Treat ISO frameworks as your foundation. Leverage Annex A controls, but map them live to your product’s SBOM, service’s incident logs, and supply chain audit trails. Modern ISMS platforms bridge the control matrix into practical compliance by assigning evidence, linking incidents, and updating proof as the environment changes.
Who Owns the Loop?
The loop is cross-team by design: policy, product, IT, operations, and leadership each log, own, and evidence their responsibilities.
Process flow-from vulnerability found, to supplier notified, patch tracked, SoA updated, audit record logged. Every action is mapped, every handoff timestamped, anyone can trace the loop.
Audit and Certification: Evidence Pathways & Common Failure Points
Passing an audit now means presenting a single, seamless narrative-linking every document, task, update, and live incident. This isn’t bureaucratic gold-plating. It’s the difference between surviving a regulatory review and being caught in a contradictory evidence snare.
Audits collapse when your evidence is disconnected-manual logs, outdated SBOMs, orphaned tickets. Unifying evidence eliminates failure at the seams.
Evidence Requirements-Bridging Product and Service
| **Expectation** | **Operationalisation** | **ISO 27001 / Annex A Reference** |
|---|---|---|
| Service continuity | BCPs, tested recovery & comms logs | A.5.29, A.5.30 |
| Supply chain transparency | SBOMs, update & vendor logs | A.8.8, A.8.9, A.5.19 |
| Vulnerability management | Patch, monitor, and update records | A.8.8, A.8.32 |
| Incident response/reporting | Notifications, incident logs, audits | A.5.25, A.5.26, A.8.15, A.8.16 |
| Access control | SoA, logs, user creds, reviews | A.5.15, A.8.3, A.8.5, A.8.18 |
Audit panic vanishes when every evidence path is current, mapped, and role-owned from end to end.
Pitfalls to Avoid:
- Relying on manual, static, or ownerless evidence documents.
- Allowing policy or control drift between product and service teams.
- Failing to align ISO/Audit/Regulation to the same, up-to-date, platform or evidence source.
Table: [Trigger] → [Risk update] → [Control/SoA link] → [Evidence logged]. Links every vulnerability, incident, or policy change directly to the evidence path needed for audit.
All your NIS 2, all in one place
From Articles 20–23 to audit plans – run and prove compliance, end-to-end.
Traceability as a Trust Lever: How to Connect Incidents, Evidence & Policy
Regulators, procurement leads, and auditors no longer trust claims-they want to see unbroken evidence chains. Traceability-each step from event to evidence-is your trust lever.
A live trace from incident detection, through SBOM and risk update, to audit trail is a trust signal stronger than any branding claim.
How to Build Traceability:
- Assign actions and evidence to real names; keep time & context logs.
- Use automation and role-mapping to close gaps in incident, update, and policy cycles (isms.online).
- Give everyone, from ops lead to auditor, a visible rail of every compliance action-incidents feed into SBOM updates, spawning fresh risk entries and policy reviews.
Traceability Table:
| **Trigger** | **Risk Update** | **Control / SoA Link** | **Evidence Logged** |
|---|---|---|---|
| New software vuln | Supplier risk review | A.8.8, A.8.9 | SBOM patch, comms log |
| Unusual access attempt | Credentials reviewed | A.5.15, A.8.5, A.8.18 | Auth logs, role updates, revocations |
| Service failure (DDoS) | BCP run & comms tested | A.5.29, A.5.30, A.8.15 | Incident log, BCP report, lessons log |
| Policy change | Gap closed; SoA updated | SoA, A.5.36 | Version log, comms, SoA record |
Screenshot or schematic-live compliance dashboard showing timelines, mapped handoffs, and “audit readiness” scores drawn from real-time evidence synchronisation.
Start Trusted – See Your Map in ISMS.online
Intent won’t pass the next audit-mapped, living evidence will. ISMS.online makes this possible by unifying your product, service, and compliance environments.
- Live Dashboards: Visualise real-time exposure across NIS 2, CRA, supply chain, open-source, and policy adherence. Every gap flagged.
- Unified Records: Policies, SBOMs, incidents, supplier data, and audit logs-all central, mapped to responsible individuals, export-ready on demand (isms.online).
- Adaptive by Design: Templates and flows flex with new regulations and contracts; live evidence updates and “audit packs” are never out of date.
- Sales & Procurement Ready: Immediate responses to questionnaires, third-party due diligence, and regulator requests-without compliance scramble or lag.
- True Team Empowerment: From the Ops lead closing a gap in hours, not weeks, to the CISO briefing the board, to the IT practitioner gaining recognition, ISMS.online turns compliance from pain point to proof of resilience.
Modern resilience is built on visibility and evidence, not on hope. ISMS.online ensures you operate from a place of credibility, not catch-up.
Great leadership sees the curve. Don’t wait for the next regulatory spiral or procurement deadline to force clarity. Map your risks, automate your evidence, and claim the trust edge with ISMS.online-where every action is auditable and every audit a new win for your team.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who determines the line between product security and service resilience in Europe, and why is this split critically urgent?
The division between product security and service resilience in Europe is led by two major pieces of legislation: the NIS 2 Directive and the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA). NIS 2 focuses on driving continuous operational resilience for digital services (think uptime, incident recovery, and supply chain vigilance), while the CRA imposes requirements on the inherent security-and post-sale lifecycle-of every digital product sold or operated in the EU. This split matters now because high-profile attacks (SolarWinds, Log4j, Kaseya) exposed how outdated boundaries left businesses exposed on both fronts (IAPP, 2023).
If you own a cloud service, SaaS, device manufacturer, or any organisation connecting services and products, you’re likely on the hook for obligations under both laws. With NIS 2 compliance required by October 2024 and the CRA’s phased enforcement starting 2025, the market now expects proof of resilience and built-in security-not just tickbox certifications.
| Legislation | Who’s in scope? | First Key Deadline | Core Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| NIS 2 Directive | Critical/important digital services | Oct 2024 (EU) | Service resilience, continuity, supply chain mapping |
| Cyber Resilience Act | Producers/importers of digital products | 2025–2027 (phased) | Security by design, SBOMs, post-market patchability |
When regulators draw a sharper line, your audit will follow it. Only organisations with unified evidence and clear accountability are fit for this new regime.
Where do NIS 2 and CRA obligations overlap-and why is the “boundary” so blurred in practise?
On paper, NIS 2 is about how you keep services running (through tested incident response, backup, and continuity), while the CRA is about making sure every digital product-software, device, SaaS endpoint-comes “secure by design,” updated and patchable throughout its lifecycle (EU Council, 2022). In daily business, those lines blur rapidly: Most SaaS, IoT, tech-enabled platforms and managed services both deliver a service and ship a product, and almost all use software supply chains that tangle product and service obligations.
Here’s how this overlap plays out:
- NIS 2: Demands service-level resilience (logging, backups, role assignments, continuity plans, supply chain checks).
- CRA: Mandates SBOMs (software bill of materials), defined vulnerability management, patch commitments-even after a product ships.
Where the “double trigger” applies
| What you deploy | NIS 2 applies | CRA applies | Real-world risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| SaaS platform | Yes | Yes* | Both must provide SBOMs and incident evidence |
| IoT device firmware | Possibly | Yes | Security flaws hit both regimes if not patched |
| Open-source component | Yes | Yes | Unpatched CVE can breach obligations on both sides |
*CRA covers software “placed on the market”-for SaaS, this can mean hosting in the EU, not just device code.
The message from Brussels: If a vulnerability or incident touches your stack, you will need to prove, instantly, your compliance under both laws.
What specific “double jeopardy” and risk hot-spots are created for organisations covered by both?
Organisations sitting in the overlap zone-operating regulated services with self-built or third-party digital products-face “double jeopardy” because compliance can be breached in either domain.
Critical hot-spots:
- SBOM & supply chain: Both laws demand exhaustive mapping of every module, vendor, and open-source dependency. Patch and lifecycle obligations are now legal, not optional (Anchore, 2023).
- Evidence ownership: Teams often split (product vs ops), so incident logs, vulnerability response, and update trails can get lost between silos-leading to audit failures or delayed incident response.
- Reporting confusion: NIS 2 specifies 24- and 72-hour windows for incident alerts, while the CRA may force near-immediate vulnerability notification-frequently to separate authorities. Mismatches here multiply the risk of missing a legal deadline or duplicating costly audit work (Third Wave Identity, 2023).
| Compliance Item | CRA Owner | NIS 2 Owner | Consequence if missed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custom code | Yes | Yes | Both regimes can fine |
| Vendor module | Yes | Yes | Supply chain penalties |
| Open-source lib | Yes | Yes | Patch/trace failure triggers |
Every unpatched dependency is a regulatory risk. Who owns this? is now a question for audit and investigation-delay costs reputation and budget.
How do reporting and evidence rules, and the pace of regulation, transform digital operations?
Compliance has gone from being a periodic “paper chase” to a daily, continuous cycle.
The operational reality:
- All relevant activity (product releases, new dependencies, patches, outages, or incidents) must be logged with visible ownership, timestamps, and mapped directly to a policy or control.
- Evidence can’t be “invented at audit time”-it must live in the platform, ready for review throughout the year.
- Regulators and large buyers can-and will-request SBOMs, incident logs, and proof of audit trails on demand, not just at set review points (Infosecurity Magazine, 2024).
Regulatory fines for failure to evidence readiness can reach €15M or 2.5% of global turnover under the CRA-modern compliance is now a direct business risk.
Reporting Cadence Table
| Framework | Initial Notification | Full Report | Ongoing Updates | Required Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NIS 2 | 24 hours | 72 hours | As incidents evolve | Incident logs, BCP tests |
| CRA | Prompt | Ongoing | Vulnerability lifecycle | SBOMs, patch logs |
Audit success is now about continuous readiness, not last-minute scrambles.
What’s the most resilient approach to managing both NIS 2 and CRA obligations-without drowning in duplicate work?
Building true resilience means committing to “living” compliance-where all your audit logs, SBOMs, role/owner assignments, and incident registers stay synchronised, accessible, and mapped under a single pane of glass. Here’s how:
- Unified leadership: Assign explicit “owners” (and deputies) for every compliance asset (SBOM, policy, contract, continuity test), with automatic reminders and escalation if review or evidence slips.
- Centralised evidence: Use a digital ISMS (like ISMS.online) to keep every control, asset, event, and audit step updated in real time-across both service and product operations (ISO, 2024).
- Cross-functional workflows: Make sure engineering, operations, compliance, and the supply chain work in a shared system-so incident, policy, and SBOM data are never siloed.
- Automated mapping: For every change, deploy, or incident, automate the link to the policy/control (e.g., ISO 27001 Annex A or Statement of Applicability reference) and log it for evidence.
| Compliance Trigger | Evidence Captured | Linked Policy/Clause |
|---|---|---|
| Log4j exploit found | SBOM patch, communication, SoA | A.8.8 / ISO 27001 |
| SaaS outage | Incident feed, BCP test record | A.5.29 / Continuity |
| Vendor replaced | Supplier contract, SBOM update | A.5.20, A.8.9 |
A “compliance-as-a-system” mindset-where every risk, owner, and update is continuously tracked-creates the habit of resilience and eliminates audit panic.
What must you show auditors and how can mistakes still derail even prepared organisations?
What auditors need to see:
- An up-to-date Statement of Applicability, mapping each control to live evidence and ownership.
- Real-time SBOMs, incident logs, patch trails-demonstrating continuous monitoring, role assignment, and regulatory reporting adherence.
- CE marks and declarations for digital products, tied to real evidence (not paper-only).
Mistakes that cripple audits or trigger fines:
- Siloed evidence: Product and service teams not sharing a platform or roles.
- Unnamed owners: Controls and evidence without visible accountability.
- Fabricated or stale records: Gaps or evidence built “on the fly” under audit pressure.
- Out-of-sync SBOMs: Product releases not reflected in inventories, leaving proof of patching or impact analysis missing (EU Council, 2023).
Organisations with mapped, owned, and continuously maintained evidence no longer fear audits-they win regulatory and buyer trust in the process.
Why is traceability the new digital trust currency-and how do you build it?
Traceability-the capacity to instantly prove “who did what, when, and under which control”-is now the expectation not just from regulators, but from enterprise buyers, insurers, and Boards (ENISA, 2024).
A fully traceable evidence chain increases speed to contract, enables faster incident response, and fundamentally reduces time spent on “finding proof” for audits and renewals.
| Event | Evidence Path | Control Ref. | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSS vulnerability | SBOM → Patch log | A.8.8, A.8.9 | Engineering |
| Service outage | Incident → BCP test | A.5.29, A.5.30 | Ops / CISO |
Automating traceability doesn’t just prevent audit drama-it systematically elevates your organisation as a trusted digital supplier.
What next steps can you take to organise and accelerate resilience and compliance-and how does ISMS.online help?
- Map your exposure: Use ISMS.online to inventory which services, products, and suppliers trigger which laws and where overlap demands unified controls.
- Automate evidence flows: Centralise SBOM management, incident logging, control mapping, and vendor compliance-so every proof is one click away.
- Align every stakeholder: Unite engineering, compliance, operations, and supply chain functions to drive unified, cross-framework readiness rather than scattered project work.
- Pivot as laws and buyers evolve: As new frameworks arrive (AI Act, future NIS/CRA updates), ISMS.online’s evolving templates and mapping flows allow your organisation to stay nimble.
Invest in traceability and living evidence-lead with confidence, ready to win not only your next audit, but also every deal and renewal in your sector.
Ready to future-proof compliance and trust? Explore your tailored ISMS.online mapping and live evidence workflow, or connect for our cross-framework readiness toolkit-so your next audit becomes market advantage, not a minefield.
