NIS2 Directive
NIS2 Chapter IV: Cybersecurity Risk-Management Measures (Article 21)

NIS2 Directive Art.21.2.d: Supply chain security, covering the relationship with each direct supplier and service provider

The Directive scopes this deliberately at direct suppliers and service providers, which makes the first artefact an inventory of who those parties are and which of them touch the network and information systems behind the service. From there the entity has to manage the security-related aspects of each relationship: what the supplier may access, what security obligations bind it, what happens on incident, and what happens at exit. Contract terms are the enforcement mechanism, so contracts that predate NIS2 and carry no security clauses are a live gap rather than a legacy inconvenience. Managed service providers and managed security service providers deserve separate attention because they hold privileged access into the estate, which makes their compromise the entity's incident.

Maintained by Gerard BlokdykVerified against the published standard Control text last updated

What else in your programme already covers this

This control maps to 64 controls across 16 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.

  • NIST-CSF-DE.CM-06 External service provider activities and services are monitored to find potentially adverse events
  • NIST-CSF-GV.SC-01 A cybersecurity supply chain risk management program, strategy, objectives, policies, and processes are established and agreed to by organizational stakeholders
  • NIST-CSF-GV.SC-02 Cybersecurity roles and responsibilities for suppliers, customers, and partners are established, communicated, and coordinated internally and externally
  • NIST-CSF-GV.SC-04 Suppliers are known and prioritized by criticality
  • NIST-CSF-GV.SC-05 Requirements to address cybersecurity risks in supply chains are established, prioritized, and integrated into contracts and other types of agreements with suppliers and other relevant third parties
  • NIST-CSF-GV.SC-09 Supply chain security practices are integrated into cybersecurity and enterprise risk management programs, and their performance is monitored throughout the technology product and service life cycle
  • NIST-CSF-GV.SC-10 Cybersecurity supply chain risk management plans include provisions for activities that occur after the conclusion of a partnership or service agreement
  • NIST-CSF-ID.AM-04 Inventories of services provided by suppliers are maintained

C5 (Germany) · 7 controls

  • C5-DEV-02 Outsourcing of the development
  • C5-OIS-03 Interfaces and Dependencies
  • C5-PI-02 Contractual agreements for the provision of data
  • C5-SSO-01 Policies and instructions for controlling and monitoring third parties
  • C5-SSO-03 Directory of service providers and suppliers
  • C5-SSO-04 Monitoring of compliance with requirements
  • C5-SSO-05 Exit strategy for the receipt of benefits

APRA CPS 234 · 4 controls

  • CPS234-16 Assessment of Related Party and Third Party Capability
  • CPS234-27 Internal Audit Assessment of Third Party Control Assurance
  • CPS234-P19 Policy Direction to All Responsible Parties
  • CPS234-P22 Evaluation of Third Party Control Design

CIS Controls v8 · 4 controls

  • CIS-15.1 Establish and Maintain an Inventory of Service Providers
  • CIS-15.2 Establish and Maintain a Service Provider Management Policy
  • CIS-15.4 Ensure Service Provider Contracts Include Security Requirements
  • CIS-15.6 Monitor Service Providers

FedRAMP High · 4 controls

  • SA-9 External System Services
  • SR-2 Supply Chain Risk Management Plan (SR-2)
  • SR-3 Supply Chain Controls and Processes (SR-3)
  • SR-8 Notification Agreements (SR-8)

FedRAMP Moderate · 4 controls

  • SA-9 External System Services
  • SR-2 Supply Chain Risk Management Plan (SR-2)
  • SR-3 Supply Chain Controls and Processes (SR-3)
  • SR-8 Notification Agreements (SR-8)

ISO 27001:2022 · 4 controls

  • 5.19 Information security in supplier relationships
  • 5.20 Addressing information security within supplier agreements
  • 5.22 Monitoring, review and change management of supplier services
  • 5.23 Information security for use of cloud services

ISO 27002:2022 · 4 controls

  • 5.19 Information security in supplier relationships
  • 5.20 Addressing information security within supplier agreements
  • 5.22 Monitoring, review and change management of supplier services
  • 5.23 Information security for use of cloud services

NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 · 4 controls

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 · 4 controls

PCI DSS 4.0 · 4 controls

  • 12.8.1 12.8.1 List of third-party service providers
  • 12.8.2 12.8.2 TPSP contracts acknowledging account data responsibility
  • 12.8.4 12.8.4 Annual monitoring of TPSP compliance status
  • 12.8.5 12.8.5 Responsibility allocation between entity and TPSPs

SOC 2 · 4 controls

  • SOC2-CC2.3 CC2.3 Communication with external parties about internal control (COSO principle 15)
  • SOC2-CC9.2 CC9.2 Assessing and managing vendor and business partner risk
  • SOC2-P6.4 P6.4 Privacy commitments from vendors and third parties
  • SOC2-P6.5 P6.5 Vendor commitments to report unauthorised disclosures

DORA · 3 controls

  • DORA-Art.28 ICT third-party risk: general principles
  • DORA-Art.29 Preliminary assessment of ICT concentration risk at entity level
  • DORA-Art.30 Key contractual provisions

CMMC 2.0 · 1 control

GDPR · 1 control

Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.

Other controls in NIS2 Chapter IV: Cybersecurity Risk-Management Measures (Article 21)

You are reading one control. How much of NIS2 Directive have you already done?

NIS2 Directive Art.21.2.d is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of NIS2 Directive your existing evidence covers. Hold DORA and 17 of 28 NIS2 Directive controls already carry evidence.

Each report names every control your existing framework evidences, every one it does not, the reasoning behind each claim, and the claims that were argued against and rejected. 0 were rejected on the DORA pair alone.

Query this from an agent

The graph holds this control, the 64 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.