Conformité Fondée Preuves : Trois Évaluations LCR Complètes
Rien n'est vrai. Tout est permis. Sauf vendre produits avec éléments numériques dans UE sans documentation—c'est non-conformité LCR.
Pensez par vous-même ! Questionnez autorité. Mais conformez-vous à Bruxelles quand voulez accès marché. Chez Hack23, nous n'attendons pas réglementations—nous documentons systématiquement comme excellence opérationnelle.
La Loi Cyber-Résilience (LCR) nécessite documentation cybersécurité pour produits avec éléments numériques. La plupart entreprises vont se précipiter. Nous l'avons déjà. Trois évaluations LCR complètes : CIA (transparence politique) | Black Trigram (jeux éducatifs) | CIA Compliance Manager (évaluation sécurité). Attestations SLSA 3, OpenSSF Scorecard 7.2+, SBOM complet, modèles menaces publics—tout lié preuves et vérifié GitHub.
ILLUMINATION : LCR existe car fabricants ont expédié produits non sécurisés pendant décennies. Bruxelles a armé conformité. Organisations intelligentes documentaient déjà sécurité—LCR standardise juste format.
Notre Processus Évaluation Conformité LCR n'est pas théorique—il est opérationnel sur tous projets. Ceci démontre notre expertise conseil cybersécurité par preuves publiques excellence conformité réglementaire.
Prêt à construire programme sécurité robuste ? Découvrez approche conseil Hack23 qui traite sécurité comme facilitateur, pas barrière.
Trois Évaluations LCR Complètes : Portfolio Preuves Publiques
Hack23 démontre expertise conformité LCR par trois implémentations référence entièrement documentées :
Chaque évaluation inclut :
- Identification Produit : Niveaux classification CIA (Confidentialité, Intégrité, Disponibilité), métriques RTO/RPO, catégorie marché
- Classification Portée LCR : OSS non-commercial, distribution communauté, classe Standard LCR (auto-évaluation)
- Documentation Technique : Architecture, SBOM, contrôles cybersécurité, sécurité chaîne approvisionnement, mécanismes mises à jour
- Évaluation Risques : Attaques chaîne approvisionnement, accès non autorisé, violations données, vulnérabilités composants, interruption service
- Exigences Essentielles : Sécurité dès conception, sécurité par défaut, divulgation vulnérabilités, surveillance sécurité
- Preuves Conformité : Attestations SLSA 3, OpenSSF Scorecard 7.2+, SBOM (SPDX + CycloneDX), rapports couverture tests
ILLUMINATION PREUVES : Chaque évaluation lie attestations GitHub immuables. Ce n'est pas blabla marketing—c'est sécurité chaîne approvisionnement cryptographiquement vérifiable.
Les Cinq Piliers Évaluation Conformité LCR
1. 📋 Identification Produit
Conformité Annexe V § 1 LCR. Chaque projet documenté avec : nom produit, tag version, URL dépôt, contact sécurité (security@hack23.org), déclaration objectif, catégorie marché (OSS non-commercial), classification CIA (niveaux Confidentialité, Intégrité, Disponibilité), métriques RTO/RPO.
Classification détermine investissement sécurité. Framework CIA étend Triade CIA traditionnelle avec métriques continuité activité.
2. 🏗️ Technical Documentation
CRA Annex V § 2 requirements. Architecture documentation, complete SBOM (SPDX + CycloneDX), cybersecurity controls (Access Control + Cryptography policies), supply chain security (SLSA 3 provenance), secure update mechanisms, security monitoring, data protection (Data Classification Policy), vulnerability disclosure (SECURITY.md).
Documentation linked to ISMS policies. Systematic integration, not ad-hoc paperwork.
3. ⚠️ Risk Assessment
CRA Annex V § 3 documentation. Five risk categories analyzed: supply chain attacks (SBOM + SLSA), unauthorized access (MFA + secret scanning), data breaches (encryption + IAM), component vulnerabilities (SCA scanning + patch management), service disruption (WAF + DDoS protection). Each risk quantified with likelihood, impact (C/I/A), controls, residual risk. Links to Risk Assessment Methodology and Risk Register.
Risk quantification based on measurable business impact, not paranoid guesswork.
4. ✅ Essential Requirements
CRA Annex I self-assessment. Eight essential requirements documented: Secure by Design (minimal attack surface via SECURITY_ARCHITECTURE.md), Secure by Default (hardened configurations), Personal Data Protection (GDPR compliance via Data Classification), Vulnerability Disclosure (public VDP via SECURITY.md), SBOM (automated generation in releases), Secure Updates (signed with attestations), Security Monitoring (comprehensive logging via Incident Response Plan), Security Documentation (USER_SECURITY_GUIDE.md).
Requirements mapped to ISMS policies. Systematic compliance, not checkbox theater.
5. 🎖️ Conformity Evidence
CRA Article 19 documentation. SLSA 3 attestations (supply chain provenance), OpenSSF Scorecard 7.2+ (security best practices), CII Best Practices badges, SonarCloud quality gates (code quality), FOSSA license compliance, test coverage ≥80% line/≥70% branch, zero critical vulnerabilities (SAST + SCA + secret scanning), public GitHub attestations for verification.
Evidence cryptographically verifiable. Trust through transparency, not marketing claims.
Supply Chain Security: SLSA 3 + OpenSSF Scorecard
CRA demands supply chain transparency. We provide cryptographic proof:
| Control | Requirement | Hack23 Implementation | Evidence |
|---|
| SLSA Provenance | Level 3 attestation | GitHub Actions automated build attestation | CIA Attestations | Black Trigram | Compliance Manager |
| OpenSSF Scorecard | ≥7.0 score | 7.2+ across all projects | CIA Score | Black Trigram | Compliance Manager |
| SBOM Generation | SPDX + CycloneDX | Automated SBOM per release | GitHub release assets with SBOM attestations |
| Dependency Review | Zero critical unresolved | Dependabot + SCA scanning | Vulnerability reports in repository |
| Code Signing | Signed releases | GitHub attestation signatures | Intoto provenance files (.intoto.jsonl) |
SUPPLY CHAIN ILLUMINATION: SLSA 3 means build provenance is cryptographically verifiable. Can't fake it. Can't social-engineer it. Either you have attestations or you don't.
Vulnerability Disclosure: CRA Annex I § 2.2 Compliance
CRA requires coordinated vulnerability disclosure processes. Each Hack23 project includes standardized SECURITY.md:
- Private Reporting: GitHub Security Advisories for confidential disclosure
- Response Timeline: 48h acknowledgment, 7d validation, 30d resolution target
- Recognition Program: Public acknowledgment (unless anonymity requested)
- Continuous Support: Latest version maintained with security updates
- Vulnerability Scope: Authentication bypass, injection attacks, remote code execution, data exposure, cryptographic weaknesses
- ISMS Integration: All vulnerabilities processed through Vulnerability Management Policy
Public vulnerability disclosure policies:
DISCLOSURE ILLUMINATION: Public vulnerability policies signal mature security practices. Absence of SECURITY.md suggests immature security practices. Transparency attracts responsible disclosure.
ISMS Policy Integration: Systematic Compliance Framework
CRA technical documentation directly mapped to Hack23 ISMS policies:
INTEGRATION ILLUMINATION: CRA documentation isn't separate bureaucracy—it's systematic integration with operational security framework. One policy, multiple compliance applications.
Conclusion: Compliance Through Operational Excellence
The Cyber Resilience Act demands documentation. Smart organizations already had it.
Hack23 demonstrates CRA conformity assessment through three complete implementations with public evidence: SLSA 3 attestations, OpenSSF Scorecard 7.2+, complete SBOM, systematic risk assessment, ISMS policy integration. This isn't last-minute scrambling—it's operational excellence documented systematically.
Brussels weaponized compliance. We weaponized documentation.
Our CRA Conformity Assessment Process template enables repeatable conformity documentation. All evidence cryptographically verifiable through GitHub attestations. All ISMS policies publicly available. All threat models documented.
Security through transparency beats security through hope.
FINAL ILLUMINATION: CRA exists because market forces failed to incentivize security. Brussels created regulatory consequences. Organizations with systematic security practices win. Organizations with ad-hoc security theater scramble. Choose wisely.