NIS2 & DORA Bring Tough Fines & Stricter Reporting Obligations: A Guide for Financial Services

John Madelin


Subscribe Contact us

What are NIS2 & DORA?


Standing for the Network and Information Security Directive, the NIS Directive is an EU Regulation which details a blanket level of cyber security measures required of all Member States and organisations within them, as well as those with or seeking to establish a footprint in Europe. In 2022, the Official Journal of the European Union published their updates to this Directive in NIS2, which made their regulations more stringent while broadening the scope of who it applies to. One of these amendments differentiated between entities deemed ‘important’ and ‘essential’, whereby the latter, which includes Banking and Finance, will be subject to closer scrutiny and greater penalties regarding their compliance with NIS2 – or lack thereof.


This level of regulated scrutiny will also be heightened by a further EU directive, the Digital Operations Resilience Act (DORA). Similar to NIS2, DORA is described as establishing a ‘comprehensive framework for harmonising digital resilience processes and standards’. However, where NIS2 applies to all business entities within the EU, DORA is specifically designed to ‘strengthen the resilience of digital operations in the financial sector’. Thus, though accounting for similar processes and practices, as we shall outline, the emergence of both NIS2 and DORA represent at least two sets of cyber criteria which financial entities must comply with, not only to avoid legal penalty, but to remain robust in an increasingly dangerous digital environment.


NIS2 and DORA are scheduled to become national law on the 17th October 2024 and 17th January 2025 respectively, and it is important to understand both in order to ensure that your business is compliant with their requirements.


NIS2 Requirements


Chapter 4 of NIS2 requires that all Member States of the EU ensure that all of their essential and important entities ‘take appropriate and proportionate technical, operational, and organisational measures to manage the risks posed to the security of network and information systems’. By ‘appropriate and proportionate’, NIS2 directs all such entities to adopt an ‘all-hazards approach’, by which they refer to a baseline set of requirements including:


a. Internal Security Policies: Develop and enforce good essential policies that ensure robust internal security practices.


b. Incident Handling: Establish tested protocols to effectively respond to and manage security incidents.


c. Backup Management & Disaster Recovery: Ensure reliable backup solutions and disaster recovery plans to safeguard data integrity, also ensuring continuity.


d. Supply Chain Security: Maintain mutual responsibilities with partners through clear connections and dependencies to avoid the cascade effect of major incidents.


e. Information Security Maintenance: Ensure the security of your network, including vulnerability handling and disclosure.


f. Ongoing Assessment: Continuously update and monitor information security measures to protect against the ever-changing street smarts of evolving threat actors.


g. Cyber Security Hygiene & Training: Regularly assess and adapt security measures to current threat landscapes, which are often basic and repeated.


h. Cryptography & Encryption: Provide continuous cyber security training promoting best practices among employees, and ensuring Quantum-ready cryptography, a subject of other evolving regulations.


i. Human Resources Security: Implement thorough background checks and enforce security protocols for all personnel.


j. Multi-Factor Authentication: Enhance access control through the use of multi-factor authentication, which is always a feature of successful cyber incidents.


DORA Requirements


DORA is considered a Lex Specialis for financial sector entities, meaning that, where it possesses overlapping or shared regulations and principles with NIS2, DORA takes precedence. Thus, though it is still important to remain aware and informed regarding NIS2 and its requirements, it is more important to be equipped with an acute understanding of DORA.


DORA requires that all financial entities be equipped with an ‘internal governance and control framework’ designed to strengthen their cyber defences, particularly in regards to the transfer of data, risk of corruption, confidentiality and loss of data, and protection from human error. In order to ensure this, DORA insists upon the implementation of the following processes:


a. An information security policy with clearly defined rules to protect the availability, authenticity, integrity, and confidentiality of data.

 

b. A sound infrastructure management structure which makes use of appropriate techniques and mechanisms, such as those which isolate affected assets in the event of a cyber attack.

 

c. Policies which limit the physical access to information assets and ICT assets to what is legitimate and approved.

 

d. Protocols for strong authentication mechanisms based on relevant standards and systems, including the use of encryption.

 

e. Controls for ICT change management in order to ensure that any changes are recorded, tested, assessed, approved, and verified.

 

f. Appropriate policies for patches and updates.


Implications for the Finance Sector


Both NIS2 and DORA may appear to establish relatively basic levels of cyber security awareness and defence, however it is important that they are properly implemented and strengthened within your operations.


This is partly due to the financial and reputational losses that can and will impact your organisation in the event of a cyber security breach. In considering financial entities to be essential, NIS2 makes them liable to a fine of up to €10m or 2% of their annual turnover, whichever is higher. Similarly, DORA penalises any instance of non-compliance with a daily fine of up to 1% of the average daily worldwide turnover of the financial entity until compliance is reimposed.


Furthermore, the reporting obligations of both Acts pose significant and specific considerations to financial entities, based on how and when an organisation should bring awareness to a potential or recent cyber security breach. 


  • DORA’s Article 10: Detection imposes that financial entities shall ‘have in place mechanisms to promptly detect anomalous activities’, and expands the reporting process in Article 17: ICT-related incident management process to ensure that ‘major’ cyber security incidents are reported to the appropriate management bodies in order to enact mitigation and prevention procedures.

 

  • Similarly, NIS2’s Article 23: Reporting Obligations requires that all essential and important entities promptly identify and report any ‘significant’ cyber security breach or incident to their representative computer security incident response teams (CSIRTs).


There are two main indicators which make an incident ‘significant’ under NIS2: one is that it has affected or caused damage to other entities or persons; the second is that ‘it has caused or is capable of causing severe […] financial loss for the entity concerned’. This is particularly emphatic for organisations which by nature and definition handle and advertise the possession of large amounts of money, a consideration which DORA highlights as an Act specific to the financial sector.


In their classifications of ICT-related incidents which financial entities should use to determine their impact, DORA specifies ‘the criticality of services affects, including the financial entity’s transactions’ as well as ‘the economic impact, in particular direct and indirect costs and losses’. Thus, it is crucial for financial organisations to ensure that their operations are properly barricaded against cyber threats, and that they have airtight contingencies and reporting protocols in place in case they are breached.


Finally, it is important to internalise clear accountability within your organisation. NIS2 makes it clear that the responsibility for the approval, delivery, and maintenance of an essential entity’s cyber security risk-management measure rests with the management bodies of the entity. This includes coordinating cyber security training and the provision of ‘sufficient knowledge and skills to enable them to identify risks and assess cybersecurity risk-management practices’. DORA is even clearer in this regard, specifying that the management body of the financial entity shall ‘bear the ultimate responsibility for managing the financial entity’s ICT risk’. Thus, the stakes are higher for executives and C-suite professionals to ensure compliance, as they will be the ones held accountable for breaches and attacks.

 

How Cambridge MC can Help


Whether your company is based primarily inside or outside the EU, it is crucial that your organisation complies with NIS2 and DORA by the end of the year if you have any entities or subsidiaries, or currently/plan to conduct work in any EU Member States. In any case, NIS2 and DORA represent aspirational sets of guidelines pertaining to the cyber hygiene of your organisation that would only strengthen it to internalise.



This is particularly salient in a regulatory culture which is increasingly prioritising and scrutinising cyber security. As of April this year, the UK Government implemented minimum security standards to protect consumers and businesses from cyber attacks. These include the banning of easily guessable default passwords; regulations which, like NIS2 and DORA, are seemingly basic yet possess higher stakes for non-compliance.


At Cambridge Management Consulting, we have a team of experienced Cyber Security professionals with decades of combined practical experience in the field, as well as detailed and up-to-date knowledge on all relevant regulations and principles.


To avoid your organisation from being left behind or penalised for a lack of cyber maturity, contact our cyber team to understand your pain points and vulnerabilities—we will work with you to construct, assess, and deliver a comprehensive strategy to resolve them.


Contact John Madelin, our Managing Partner for Cyber Security, or learn more about our Cyber Security capability here.


Contact - NIS2 Article

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Blog Subscribe

SHARE CONTENT

Pembroke College lawn bathed in sunlight
by Tim Passingham 12 March 2026
CAMBRIDGE | See how Cambridge MC and Pembroke College are creating mutual value through a unique corporate partnership spanning student opportunities, academic collaboration and industry events | READ FULL CASE STUDY
Neon sharks made out of code.
by Simon Crimp 9 March 2026
Cyber Security | Ransomware in 2026 is a board-level resilience issue. Learn the key risks, weak spots and practical questions boards should ask to improve readiness, recovery and response.
The Top 21.2026 at the awards event in Cambridge, UK.
6 March 2026
The #21toWatch Top21.2026 winners have been announced at an awards ceremony at The Glasshouse innovation hub in Cambridge.
Asian business woman near a long window and looking at a tablet.
by Arianna Mortali 6 March 2026
BLOG | A student’s perspective on why women shouldn’t have to ‘play masculine’ to succeed at work – and how valuing empathy, confidence and inclusive leadership can help close gender gaps and build healthier organisations.
Abstract squiggle of circles
by Simon Crimp 19 February 2026
Where should leaders start with AI in 2026? A practical guide to moving beyond pilots, clarifying risk appetite, strengthening governance, improving data readiness, and delivering measurable enterprise value from AI at scale | READ FULL ARTICLE
Close up of a data centre stack with ports and wires visible
12 February 2026
We were approached by one of the fastest growing data centre providers in Europe. With over 20 data centres throughout the continent, they are consistently meeting the need for scalable, high-performance infrastructure. Despite this, a key data centre in Scandinavia had become reliant on a single, non-redundant 1 Gbps internet service from a local provider, posing significant risks to operational continuity. To enhance the reliability of its network and resolve these risks, our client needed to establish additional connectivity paths to ensure the redundancy of its infrastructure. The Ask Cambridge Management Consulting was engaged to address these connectivity challenges by identifying and evaluating potential vendors and infrastructure options to create second and third connectivity paths. This involved exploring various types of connectivity, including internet access, point-to-point capacity, wavelengths, and dark fibre. Additionally, Cambridge MC was asked to provide recommendations for building a local fibre network around the data centre to control and maintain diverse paths. This would allow the data centre to connect directly to nearby points of presence (PoPs) and reduce dependency on external providers, thereby enhancing network resilience and operational control. The goal of this project was to ensure that the Nordic data centre could maintain continuous operations even in the event of a failure in the primary connection. Approach & Skills Cambridge MC approached the project with a focus on ensuring operational continuity and resilience for the data centre. By identifying multiple connectivity paths, we aimed to mitigate the risk of network failures and ensure that the data centre could maintain continuous operations even in the event of a failure in the primary connection. This approach allowed Cambridge MC to provide a comprehensive solution to address both immediate and long-term connectivity needs. We employed a combination of Agile and Waterfall methodologies to manage the project. The initial investigative phase allowed a Waterfall approach, in which our team conducted thorough research and analysis to identify potential vendors and connectivity options. This phase involved detailed interviews with various telecommunications providers and an assessment of publicly available information. Once the initial analysis was complete, the workflow transitioned to an Agile approach for the implementation phase. This allowed Cambridge MC to adapt to new information and feedback from stakeholders, ensuring that the final solution was both flexible and robust. Challenges Lack of information: One of the primary obstacles we faced was the lack of detailed network maps and information from some of the potential vendors. To overcome this, the team conducted extensive interviews with contacts at these companies and leveraged its existing network of industry contacts to gather as much information as possible. Remote location: Another challenge was the remote location of the data centre, which limited the availability of local infrastructure and required us to explore creative solutions for connectivity. Cambridge MC addressed this by proposing the construction of a local fibre network around the data centre, which would allow for greater control and flexibility in connecting to nearby PoPs. Fragmented factors: Additionally, coordinating with multiple vendors and ensuring that their services could be integrated seamlessly posed a logistical challenge. We mitigated this by recommending a phased approach to implementation, starting with the most critical connectivity paths and gradually expanding to include additional options. Outcomes & Results Increased Connectivity: Cambridge MC successfully identified and evaluated multiple connectivity paths for the data centre. By exploring various types of connectivity, including internet access, point-to-point capacity, wavelengths, and dark fibre, we provided a comprehensive solution that significantly enhanced network resilience and reliability. Greater Control & Flexibility: Our recommendations for building a local fibre network around the data centre allowed for greater control and flexibility in connecting to nearby points of presence, ensuring continuous operations even in the event of a failure in the primary connection. New Vendors: The team’s extensive network of industry contacts and deep understanding of the regional telecommunications landscape allowed for a thorough and nuanced evaluation of potential vendors and connectivity options. Scope for Future Work: Cambridge MC identified several future developments with the potential to further enhance international connectivity and provide additional redundancy for the data centre. We also proposed further assistance, including a site visit for a more in-depth analysis of options, issuing RFI/RFP to vendors for capacity and fibre, and conducting similar connectivity studies for other candidate sites in the region.
Neon discs fading from blue to green to purple, cascading diagnolly across the screen.
by Cambridge Management Consulting 28 January 2026
Thames Freeport this week revealed the eight companies selected to participate in the Freeport’s Connectivity Lab, an initiative focused on validating commercially proven technologies in live port and logistics environments.
Aerial view of a data centre warehouse in the English countryside
by Duncan Clubb 13 January 2026
Author
by Matt Lawson 2 January 2026
Emerging as a hub for innovation, Thames Freeport is a unique initiative designed to stimulate trade and transform the lives of people in its region. Leveraging global connectivity and occupying a strategic position with intermodal capabilities across river, rail, and road, Thames Freeport has recognised its opportunity to drive economic regeneration for the local area. Thames Freeport engaged Cambridge Management Consulting to design a clear strategy for innovation over the next three to five years. Key considerations for this innovation strategy included objectives and KPIs, the future of the business ecosystem in the region, physical clusters and assets such as innovation hubs, and opportunities and challenges on the way. The Solution Working with our innovation partner, L Marks, Cambridge MC conducted an innovation strategy project which involved the following: Engaging with a range of stakeholders and partners from local authorities to corporate partners across the Thames Freeport area, leveraging interviews with key individuals to build a common picture of innovation aspirations, opportunities, and challenges. Conducting a series of workshops for the Thames Freeport team to consider visions and objectives, themes and focus areas, physical hubs and overall programme structure, and a three-year roadmap plan. Building a comprehensive innovation strategy which internalised all of the above questions. This was then presented to their board and formed the basis of the public tenders for innovation programmes that were then made public. 
More posts