Governance and responsibilities
Who owns security, who makes decisions, who controls the budget and who communicates during an incident.
The new Cybersecurity Act does not apply to everyone in the same way. The service provided, organisation size, sector and obligation regime all matter. We help you correctly define the scope, assess your current position and turn requirements into a concrete plan.
Being “an energy company” or “a medium-sized organisation” is not enough. What matters is the specific regulated service, the significance criteria and, in some cases, relationships between linked enterprises.
We identify the specific service and sector, not just a broad company category.
We check size and other criteria for the relevant regulated service.
We define the service, supporting assets, processes and responsible people.
The lower- or higher-obligation regime determines the scope of the resulting requirements.
Answer four questions. Get an indicative result and a recommended next step without registering.
This is not a legal opinion or a substitute for an official assessment.
Regulation affects organisational governance, everyday processes and technical operations. You need a system you can use and demonstrate.
Who owns security, who makes decisions, who controls the budget and who communicates during an incident.
What the organization protects, which systems support the regulated service, and which risks take priority.
Technical and organizational measures suited to both the regulatory regime and the actual environment.
How to recognize, escalate and report an incident, and maintain or restore service delivery.
Supply chain security, access management, training and employee preparedness.
The deliverables must be useful to management, IT and the people responsible for individual tasks.
An overview of regulated services, the affected parts of the organization and the expected regulatory regime.
What you already have, what falls short of requirements, and what simply needs to be documented or adjusted.
Tasks ranked by risk, statutory priority, dependencies and effort.
Who decides, who implements, who checks, and who needs to be informed.
Policies, procedures and records that reflect how the organization actually works.
Contacts, escalation, decision points, reporting and links to business continuity.
For organizations unsure whether they fall under the regulation, which services are assessed, or which regime applies to them.
For organizations that have already defined their scope but do not know how far they are from meeting requirements.
For organizations that need to put measures, documentation and responsibilities into practice.
For organizations that want security to continue beyond the end of a project.
Technology is only one part. Management must decide who is accountable, what takes priority, and how to tell whether the measures work.
Which risks we accept, what takes priority, and what resources the organization will allocate.
Who owns the security of the regulated service and who checks that measures are implemented.
How management can tell that measures actually work, rather than simply existing in the documentation.
Services, organization, sector, size and current state.
What is regulated, what provides support, and what falls outside the project.
People, processes, documentation, technology and suppliers.
Critical gaps first, followed by long-term sustainability.
Checking evidence, responsibilities and how measures work in practice.
Rules and supporting materials are continually updated. The authoritative sources are the Act, implementing regulations and official NÚKIB guidance.
This depends on the specific service, sector and significance criteria defined by the Act and implementing decree. The preliminary assessment above points you in the likely direction; a definitive conclusion must account for the organizational and technical context.
The regimes differ in the scope and detail of obligations, security measures and incident reporting. The specific regime is determined by the regulated service provided and the conditions applicable to it.
Not automatically. We first assess existing measures and actual gaps. A new tool only makes sense if it addresses a specific requirement or risk and the organization can operate it over the long term.
Yes. We do not start from scratch if you already have a functioning management system, security policies or risk records. We reuse existing materials and add only what is needed.
BOIT focuses on cybersecurity, practical implementation of measures and technical readiness. If the situation requires a formal legal opinion, we recommend involving a legal specialist.