EvidenceSheet
DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554) · DORA Chapters VI-VII: Information Sharing, Penalties and Data Protection

Art.45 Information-sharing arrangements on cyber threat information and intelligence

Financial entities may share cyber threat information and intelligence (for example compromise indicators, attacker tactics, techniques and procedures, security alerts and configuration tools) among themselves where the exchange aims to strengthen digital operational resilience, happens inside trusted communities of financial entities, and runs under arrangements that protect sensitive information and respect business confidentiality, the GDPR and competition guidelines; the arrangements set participation conditions and any role of public authorities, ICT providers and shared platforms. Participation is optional, but an entity that joins or leaves such an arrangement must notify its competent authority once membership is validated or the exit takes effect (Art. 45(3)).

Source: DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554), Art.45. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554) in the compliance library.

Scope: Taking part in an information-sharing arrangement is voluntary; the evidence applies only if you take part.

Applies to the financial entities listed in Article 2. Many duties are lighter or absent for microenterprises and for the entities in Article 16(1); each statement says where. Article 19 carries the reporting clocks of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/301, Article 5.

3
artefacts
1
held by a system
2
at each review
moderate
to go live
Vendor register / contract repository
where the evidence lives
teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

  • Membership agreement and rules of conduct for each information-sharing community joined · Vendor register / contract repository

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Notification to the competent authority of joining or leaving an arrangement, with date · Regulator portal / correspondence
  • Data protection and confidentiality assessment of the information shared · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

none for this control

First move

Start with the 1 of 3 artefacts that already live in a system (Vendor register / contract repository); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

Art.31 Designation of critical ICT third-party service providers