This point pulls together the authentication and communications controls the Directive names explicitly. Multi-factor authentication, or continuous authentication solutions in its place, is expected where appropriate, and the interesting question is always coverage: remote access, administrative access, and access to the systems behind the essential service are where absence matters most. Secured voice, video and text communications within the entity is the second limb. The third, secured emergency communication systems, is the one most often absent, and it is the one that decides whether the entity can coordinate during an incident in which its normal collaboration and directory services are unavailable or untrusted. A crisis plan that runs on the corporate messaging platform does not satisfy this if that platform is what has been compromised.
NIS2 Directive Art.21.2.j 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.
The graph holds this control, the 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.