UK policymakers are in the middle of a major refresh to the country’s cyber regulatory framework for critical services. The proposed Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, often shortened to the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill (CSRB), is intended to update the UK’s existing Network and Information Systems (NIS) Regulations 2018.
For operators and providers tied to essential services and digital infrastructure, the UK is signaling stronger oversight and more consequential enforcement, including proposed maximum fines of up to £17 million or 4% of worldwide turnover for more serious breaches[1].
The policy intent is explicitly focused on protecting critical national infrastructure, including environments that rely on information technology and operational technology. The UK government describes the NIS Regulations as the UK’s cross sector cyber security legislation safeguarding much of the UK’s Critical National Infrastructure by placing security duties on operators delivering essential services.
At a high level, CSRB is positioned as a modernization of NIS 2018. The UK’s policy statement is clear that the Bill is intended to “strengthen the UK’s cyber defences and build the resilience of our essential services, infrastructure, and digital services.”
The current UK NIS regime already covers essential service sectors including transport, energy, drinking water, health, and digital infrastructure, plus certain digital services (for example, cloud computing services). CSRB then builds on that baseline by expanding scope and strengthening regulator leverage. For example, Parliament’s summary of the Bill’s aims includes expanding scope to cover areas such as data centres, managed service providers, and certain critical suppliers, alongside enhanced regulator powers (including higher fines and stronger oversight tools).
Currently, CSRB is still moving through Parliament. Here is the movement we have seen so far:
Right now, there is not a single “go-live” date to plan around, because the Bill is still progressing through Parliament. The government has also been explicit that key enforcement measures are intended to be commenced through secondary legislation following Royal Assent, to give regulators time to prepare and to coordinate details such as how “turnover” will be determined.
At the same time, the enforcement direction is already clear, and it is one of the main reasons CSRB is worth paying attention to now. In its enforcement factsheet, the government outlines a shift to a simplified two-band penalty structure and new maximum penalties that include turnover-based caps. For more serious breaches, the maximum penalty is described as up to £17 million or 4% of worldwide turnover (whichever is higher), and for less serious breaches, up to £10 million or 2% of worldwide turnover (whichever is higher). It also states that the precise definition of turnover will be set out in secondary legislation, subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. (Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cyber-security-and-resilience-network-and-information-systems-bill-factsheets/enforcement)
With CSRB, UK NIS, and EU NIS2 often discussed together, it can feel like there are multiple overlapping frameworks to track. In reality, they are related but distinct. CSRB represents the UK’s path forward, building on NIS 2018, while NIS2 is an EU directive that applies through EU jurisdiction. Organizations operating across both regions may need to account for both, but they are not enforced as a single regime.
That distinction matters legally, but operationally the picture is simpler. These frameworks exist for the same reason: critical services increasingly depend on digital and interconnected systems, and regulators expect operators to manage cyber risk in a structured, demonstrable way. As a result, the requirements tend to point in the same direction, even when the language and enforcement models differ.
Ultimately, all of these frameworks demand a stronger security foundation for critical infrastructure—particularly in OT environments. That foundation consistently includes:
The frameworks may evolve, and new regulations will continue to emerge, but OT security programs tend to rise or fall on these same fundamentals, especially in environments where availability, safety, and operational continuity cannot be compromised.
Although the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill is still progressing and key details will be finalized through secondary legislation, its intent is clear. Like UK NIS and EU NIS2, CSRB raises expectations around asset visibility, change control, monitoring, and defensible evidence—particularly in OT environments supporting critical services.
Industrial Defender is built to support these foundational requirements. The platform provides trusted OT data collection and continuous asset visibility, giving operators a defensible understanding of their industrial environments. From there, it supports configuration baselining, change tracking, and historical records that help teams manage risk without compromising availability or safety.
Industrial Defender also enables risk reduction and detection through OT-aware vulnerability management and security monitoring, aligned to the operational realities of critical infrastructure. These capabilities come together through compliance automation and reporting, including out-of-the-box support for UK NIS and EU NIS2, as well as flexible, customizable reporting that can be mapped to evolving frameworks—positioning organizations to adapt as CSRB requirements are finalized.
As regulatory expectations continue to converge, organizations that invest in these core capabilities will be best prepared to respond.
To learn how Industrial Defender and our team can help strengthen your OT security and compliance foundation, reach out to schedule a demo.
