Art.6 ICT risk management framework
Financial entities keep a sound, comprehensive and documented ICT risk management framework within their overall risk management system, covering the strategies, policies, procedures, protocols and tools that protect information and ICT assets and physical infrastructure, and including a digital operational resilience strategy (risk tolerance, security objectives, reference architecture, detection, testing and incident communication). The framework is reviewed yearly as a minimum (a microenterprise may instead set its own periodic cycle), and also after major ICT-related incidents and after supervisory instructions or test and audit conclusions, with a review report available to the competent authority on request (Art. 6(5)). Entities other than microenterprises assign ICT risk to an independent control function (Art. 6(4)) and subject the framework to regular internal audit by auditors with ICT expertise and independence, followed by a formal process to remediate critical findings (Art. 6(6) and (7)); microenterprises are outside the internal-audit duty. Applied in proportion to size, risk profile and complexity under Article 4(1). Entities listed in Article 16(1) are outside this Article and follow the simplified framework of Article 16 instead.
Source: DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554), Art.6. 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.
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.
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
none for this control
periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review
- Review records triggered by major ICT-related incidents, supervisory instructions or test and audit conclusions, and any review report sent to the authority on request · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- ICT internal audit plan, audit reports on the framework and the tracker for remediation of critical findings (entities other than microenterprises) · Policy repository / GRC workspace
governing documentDocuments that govern the control
- Current ICT risk management framework document with version history showing the yearly review (or the periodic review cycle a microenterprise has set) · Document repository
- Mandate of the independent ICT risk control function (entities other than microenterprises) · Document repository
- Digital operational resilience strategy stating ICT risk tolerance, security objectives and key risk metrics · Policy repository / GRC workspace
First move
Common gaps auditors find
- Framework reviewed only on the calendar cycle, not after a major ICT-related incident
- Microenterprise exemption from internal audit or the yearly review claimed by an entity that does not qualify
- Critical ICT audit findings with no tracked remediation deadline
- Control function reports to the line it is meant to oversee
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 sheetArt.5 Governance and organisation · Art.7 ICT systems, protocols and tools