Firevault, offline secure storage, physically disconnected from the internet
Pricing

Control and NIS2

Physical evidence for NIS2 Article 21 measures.

NIS2 requires essential and important entities to implement appropriate technical measures. Control provides a physical enforcement layer that turns those measures into evidence rather than intent.

As featured in

  • TechRadar Pro logo
  • Yahoo Finance logo
  • Channel Insider logo
  • Security Buyer logo
  • SecurityBrief logo

The problem

NIS2 asks for security measures you can demonstrate.

Proportionate measures, effective segmentation and management accountability all come down to the same question: what can you show?

  1. Records held in Firevault Bunkers: Europe live, US and Middle East next.

  2. Documented multi-party authorisation and governance processes show management oversight.

  3. Automated compliance logging generates continuous NIS2 evidence, closing gaps between assessments.

Problem 1

Proportionate measures.

NIS2 requires measures proportionate to the risk, which means demonstrating that security goes beyond standard software controls where the risk calls for it.

Answered byUK and EU data residency

Problem 3

Management accountability.

NIS2 introduces personal liability for management bodies. Demonstrating appropriate measures takes evidence that goes beyond compliance checklists.

Physically disconnected Offline Secure Storage: server, three drives and a padlock
Answered byContinuous evidence

The mapping

Where NIS2 Article 21 measures meet Control modules.

Article 21(2) lists the measures. Control provides the physical enforcement layer that turns them into evidence.

Article 21(2) measure Control modules How Control helps
21(2)(a)Risk analysis and information security policies
  • Validate
  • Archive
 Continuous attestation of conduit state provides the evidence behind the policy.
21(2)(b)Incident handling
  • Firebreak
  • Execute
 Firebreak severs governed conduits on alert; restoration is an evidenced Execute event.
21(2)(c)Business continuity and crisis management
  • Archive
  • Transfer
 Offline recovery copies remain available even when the live network is gone.
21(2)(d)Supply chain security
  • Firebreak
  • Relay
  • Lock
 Vendor reach is severed by default and opened only as a time-bound, scoped session.
21(2)(e)Security in acquisition, development and maintenance
  • Relay
  • Execute
 Maintenance windows are governed Relay sessions with multi-party approval.
21(2)(f)Effectiveness of measures
  • Validate
 Validate provides continuous, signed evidence that boundaries hold.
21(2)(g)Cyber hygiene and training
  • Lock
  • Unlink
 Named access removes shared, evergreen credentials from the workflow.
21(2)(i)Human resources security and access control
  • Unlink
  • Lock
 Trust is revoked at the boundary when relationships end.
21(2)(j)Multi-factor and secured communications
  • Lock
  • Relay
  • Isolate
 Cross-zone reach uses named, scoped, time-bound conduits.

Alignment, not certification. Control can help support these measures; your assessor decides what satisfies them.

The scenario

Scenario: a NIS2 audit with physical evidence.

Point-in-time screenshots cannot prove there were no gaps between audits. Step through it, or play it through.

Step 1 of 2

Without physical evidence

An essential entity faces its first NIS2 compliance audit.

Its segmentation is logical, and it cannot demonstrate continuous compliance between assessments.

Boundaries
Logical, configured in software
Evidence
Point-in-time, at each audit

An illustrative scenario.

Capabilities

What you get with every deployment.

Six things Control gives a NIS2 programme, from the first boundary to the audit afterwards.

NIS2

UK and EU data residency

Records held in Firevault Bunkers: Europe live, US and Middle East next.

NIS2

Management accountability

Documented multi-party authorisation and governance processes show management oversight.

NIS2

Continuous evidence

Automated compliance logging generates continuous NIS2 evidence, closing gaps between assessments.

NIS2

Incident response

Physical zone isolation supports rapid containment for NIS2 notification timelines.

NIS2

Audit-ready records

Tamper-evident logs give audit trails for boundary states, access authorisations and incident actions.

NIS2

Recovery assurance

Verified control-plane baselines help demonstrate business continuity capability.

Adoption guide

From gap assessment to continuous evidence.

  1. 1

    NIS2 gap assessment

    Map your current security measures against NIS2 Article 21 to find where physical enforcement helps.

  2. 2

    Compliance architecture design

    Design physical zone boundaries and access controls for your entity classification.

  3. 3

    Evidence validation

    Deploy Control in a representative environment to test evidence generation before your first assessment.

  4. 4

    Organisation-wide deployment

    Roll out with continuous compliance evidence, multi-party governance and verified baselines.

Questions

What teams ask about Control and NIS2

Mainly Article 21(2), the cybersecurity risk-management measures, with evidence that also supports Article 20 management accountability and Article 23 incident reporting.

NIS2 asks for appropriate and proportionate measures rather than a specific technology. Physical segmentation is one way to evidence them where the risk calls for it.

A log made at the moment of isolation records what was severed, when and by whom, which supports the 24-hour early warning and 72-hour notification.

Yes, Article 21(2)(d): vendor reach is severed by default and opened only as a time-bound, scoped session.

All questions

Map Control to your regulator’s language.

Walk through NIS2 with the Firevault team and see where physical evidence fits your programme. Alignment, not certification.