Compliance Labs helps organizations operating critical infrastructure find, compare and evaluate OT cybersecurity software against 35+ cybersecurity regulations including NIS2, NERC CIP and NCA OTCC, and frameworks including NIST CSF, NIST SP 800-82, MITRE ATT&CK ICS, for SCADA, ICS and industrial cybersecurity environments.
1000+ software solutions listed
40+ regulations & frameworks
MITRE ATT&CK ICS threat mapping
If you operate critical infrastructure, OT cybersecurity compliance is no longer optional.
62% of system intrusion incidents are caused by vendors and supply chains.
Organizations rank third-party risk as their top priority but can't assess it.
Most OT organizations faced at least one intrusion in the past 12 months.
18 minutes average breakout time from initial compromise to lateral movement.
68% of industrial companies are unfamiliar with their OT regulatory obligations.
Regulations overlap but evidence requirements don't.
NIS2 requires 24-hour incident notification and 72-hour reporting.
NERC CIP, NCA OTCC, IEC 62443 each define OT controls differently.
60% of organizations cite lack of internal resources as their main OT security barrier.
ICS/OT security budgets rarely fall under the CISO.
IT and OT teams operate in silos with conflicting priorities.
OT compliance frameworks are growing more complex to manage.
Third-party risk is the biggest compliance gap in OT and the leading cause of supply chain breaches. Your vendors provide no regulatory evidence. Compliance Labs maps 1000+ software to 35+ regulations and frameworks so you can see what your vendors cover, identify what’s missing, and close the gap before it becomes an incident.
Browse OT cybersecurity software by the regulation or framework that applies to you. See every solution that addresses your compliance obligations.
See what each of your OT vendors covers and where they have gaps. Third-party risk visible for the first time across your entire software stack.
Compare how multiple OT solutions cover the same regulation. Same criteria, same methodology, objective data your compliance team can act on.
Filter by OT protocol support, deployment model, ICS compatibility, and sector. Results relevant to your operational environment.
OT regulations are multiplying and each defines cybersecurity controls differently. Compliance Labs evaluates your OT software stack against your specific regulatory requirements using a structured methodology based on NIST SP 800-53A. Each evaluation generates one report per framework with control coverage, provenance and rationale. You see exactly where you stand and what remains to address.
One report per OT regulation or framework. Control coverage, gaps and evidence documented for every requirement.
Each software capability linked to specific OT regulatory articles or OT framework controls relationship type and provenance.
Threat mapping against ICS-specific techniques and mitigations. See which real-world OT threats each solution in your stack detects or prevents.
Gap analysis for NIS2 OT requirements including incident notification and supply chain obligations. Know where your stack stands before the regulator asks.
Your compliance team lacks the resources and OT expertise to manage frameworks that grow more complex every year. Compliance Labs provides structured evidence, continuous monitoring, and dedicated analyst support across your entire OT compliance program. One partner closes the gap between your IT and OT security requirements.
Structured evidence package covering IT and OT requirements. Ready to share with your regulator, auditor, or insurer without rebuilding from scratch.
Your evaluations updated when regulations change, software evolves or new threats emerge. No more snapshots that expire before the next audit cycle.
Notified when regulatory or framework changes impact your OT software stack. New obligations and updated deadlines delivered before they catch you.
A Compliance Labs analyst assigned to your account for ongoing OT compliance support. One point of contact across evaluations and audits.
OT cybersecurity compliance services for critical infrastructure.
Compliance Labs researches OT cybersecurity software from publicly accessible documentation and maps capabilities to the regulatory requirements or frameworks controls they address, helping organizations identify which solutions best cover their OT regulatory or framework obligations. Using a methodology built on NIST IR, each capability is linked to specific regulatory articles or framework controls with relationship type, provenance and rationale.
Two levels of evaluation, one methodology. The Compliance Assurance Evaluation reviews vendor documentation to assess whether controls are suitably designed to address your regulatory requirements. The Evidence Effectiveness Evaluation goes further: Compliance Labs tests the software and collects the technical evidence that auditors expect. Both generate structured, audit-ready reports per framework with coverage type, source provenance and rationale.
Evaluations include MITRE ATT&CK for ICS threat and mapping to connect regulatory or framework coverage to real world attack techniques. For organizations preparing for NIS2 OT compliance, gap analysis covers remediation roadmap and priority scoring aligned to NIS2 essential and important entity requirements. A dedicated analyst supports your compliance program.
From 15+ years securing critical infrastructure and industrial environments.
Sector: Major European gas transmission operator, 50+ industrial sites across multiple countries, classified as critical national infrastructure.
Context: The operator’s OT environment relied on equipment from over a dozen major industrial vendors including ABB, Schneider, Siemens, Baker Hughes, GE, Solar, Thermodyn and Clemessy.
Challenge: Over 100 cybersecurity acceptance tests (FAT/SAT) were required across European sites for PLCs, safety systems (APS), compression packages, RTUs and programming consoles. No vendor provided structured compliance evidence. Every test plan had to be built from scratch for every vendor on every project.
Consequence: The security team became the bottleneck for industrial project delivery. Months of preparation per project, no reusability between vendors, no scalability.
Compliance takeaway: When no vendor provides regulatory evidence, the burden falls entirely on the operator. Pre-evaluated vendor compliance maps against regulations (NCA OTCC, NIS2) and frameworks (NIST SP 800-82) replace months of manual FAT/SAT preparation. One evaluation per vendor, reusable across every project and every site.
Sector: European motorway concession operators managing thousands of kilometers including tunnels, toll systems, traffic management and emergency infrastructure.
Context: Motorway operators depend on SCADA systems for tunnel ventilation, fire detection, traffic flow control, toll collection and emergency communications. These systems were designed for safety and availability, not cybersecurity.
Challenge: Each concession operated independently with different equipment vendors, different architectures and different levels of OT maturity. No structured assessment existed to evaluate whether deployed OT software addressed regulatory requirements. Risk assessments had to cover both physical safety and cybersecurity. Transactional payment systems added PCI DSS requirements on top of OT obligations.
Consequence: No way to compare compliance posture across concessions. Every assessment was a bespoke engagement. Regulatory pressure mounting with NIS2 classifying transport as essential entities.
Compliance takeaway: Operators with hundreds of distributed SCADA systems cannot assess each vendor individually. Compliance maps per OT software and one search by regulation show which solutions address transport-specific requirements across both safety and cybersecurity domains.
Sector: Water and environment utility operating treatment plants, pump stations, distribution networks and environmental monitoring systems.
Context: OT systems spread across hundreds of geographically distributed sites. Each site ran different SCADA configurations, different telemetry protocols and different generations of control equipment.
Challenge: Asset inventory incomplete, documentation outdated. No consolidated view of the OT software deployed across the infrastructure. The security team had no way to determine which regulatory requirements were covered by which software at which site.
Consequence: Every site had to be assessed individually from scratch. With limited security staff and competing priorities between water quality, environmental monitoring and cybersecurity, the compliance workload was unsustainable.
Compliance takeaway: Without a centralized compliance view per software, every site is a separate compliance project. Stack gap analysis across all sites with one compliance baseline per OT software applied consistently replaces site-by-site manual inventory.
Sector: Major European energy utilities operating power generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure.
Challenge: IT security teams managed enterprise controls but had no visibility on OT-specific risks. OT teams understood industrial processes but lacked compliance expertise. No common framework existed to evaluate the same software against both IT regulations and OT frameworks. Audit findings were fragmented across two silos with no shared reference.
Sector: Major European energy utilities operating power generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure, classified as operators of vital importance.
Context: The utilities operated under dual compliance pressure: enterprise IT policies governed by ISO 27001 and national regulations, and OT-specific requirements driven by defense regulations (LPM) and industrial standards.
Challenge: IT security teams managed enterprise controls but had no visibility on OT-specific risks such as safety system isolation, industrial protocol security and obsolescence in air-gapped environments.
Consequence: Two parallel audit trails with no shared reference. Findings fragmented, remediation plans contradicted each other, and the board received two different versions of the compliance posture.
Compliance takeaway: IT/OT governance harmonization fails without a shared compliance reference. Unified compliance maps covering IT regulations (NIS2) and OT frameworks (NIST SP 800-82, MITRE ATT&CK ICS) provide one source of truth instead of two separate audit trails.
The expertise behind every compliance map and report.
Vendor-neutral assessments designed for OT security, risk teams and audit-ready documentation.
Supporting organizations across IT, OT and AI compliance programs since 2000.
Designed by former OT owners and compliance officers who understand critical infrastructure.
