What is the primary objective of **DORA**?

**The primary objective of DORA is to strengthen the digital operational resilience of the EU financial sector against ICT disruptions, including cyberattacks, system failures, and third-party risks.** Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 mandates ICT risk management, incident reporting, resilience testing, and third-party oversight for 20 financial entity types and critical ICT third-party providers (CTPPs), applying fully from January 17, 2025.

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with **DORA**?

**DORA applies to 20 types of EU financial entities, including credit institutions, insurance undertakings, investment firms, payment institutions, and crypto-asset service providers, plus critical ICT third-party providers (CTPPs).** Approximately 22,000 regulated entities must comply, with CTPPs like cloud providers subject to ESA oversight; proportionality tailors requirements to size, complexity, and risk.

Does **DORA** require an external audit or third-party certification?

**DORA does not mandate external audits or third-party certification but requires risk-based digital operational resilience testing, including independent annual basic tests and triennial threat-led penetration testing (TLPT) for critical entities.** Testing may involve external providers, with results reported to authorities; third-party oversight includes contractual audit rights for CTPPs.

How often should an assessment for **DORA** be performed?

**DORA requires annual basic ICT resilience tests, such as vulnerability assessments, and triennial advanced TLPT for designated critical entities.** ICT risk management frameworks must undergo annual reviews, with incident response exercises and third-party risk assessments conducted ongoing or as risks evolve, per proportionality principles.

What are the consequences of non-compliance with **DORA**?

**Non-compliance with DORA incurs administrative fines up to 2% of total global annual turnover for firms or €5 million (or 10% of annual salary) for individuals.** Competent authorities and ESAs enforce penalties, alongside reputational damage, operational restrictions, and mandatory remediation for failures in ICT risk management, reporting, testing, or third-party oversight.

An **DORA** be mapped to other international frameworks?

**Yes, DORA's ICT risk management, incident reporting, testing, and third-party oversight elements align structurally with mature resilience frameworks, facilitating gap analyses and integrated compliance programs.** Financial entities often map DORA's proportional controls, 4-hour reporting timelines, and TLPT requirements to existing governance models for efficiency.

What is the first step to begin implementing **DORA**?

**The first step for DORA implementation is conducting a gap analysis of current ICT risk management against the ESAs' Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) on ICT frameworks, published January 17, 2024.** This identifies deficiencies in strategies, incident classification, testing plans, and third-party policies, enabling prioritized remediation ahead of the January 17, 2025 deadline.

What is the primary objective of **AS9100**?

**The primary objective of AS9100 is to establish a quality management system (QMS) for aviation, space, and defense organizations that ensures product safety, configuration integrity, and supply chain reliability.** AS9100D (2016) builds on ISO 9001:2015's 10-clause structure, adding over 100 aerospace-specific requirements in Clause 8, including operational risk management (8.1.1), configuration management (8.1.2), product safety (8.1.3), and counterfeit parts prevention (8.1.4), to prevent quality escapes with catastrophic potential.

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with **AS9100**?

**AS9100 applies to organizations that design, develop, manufacture, or service aviation, space, and defense products and services.** It targets manufacturers of parts, materials suppliers, design centers, and quality organizations in these sectors; major OEMs and primes require certification as a supplier qualification condition, with visibility via IAQG's OASIS database. AS9100D scope (Clause 4.3) demands precise definition, with limited non-applicability justified by product type or regulations.

Does **AS9100** require an external audit or third-party certification?

**Yes, AS9100 requires third-party certification through accredited bodies via a two-stage audit process.** Stage 1 assesses documentation and readiness; Stage 2 verifies implementation and effectiveness per AS9101 guidance. Certification is maintained with annual surveillance audits and recertification every three years, emphasizing objective evidence of process control, nonconformity correction (typically 60-90 days), and continual improvement.

How often should an assessment for **AS9100** be performed?

**AS9100 requires internal audits at planned intervals per a risk-based program (Clause 9.2), with external surveillance annually and full recertification every three years.** Organizations conduct internal audits covering all processes, focusing on high-risk areas like Clause 8 controls; management reviews (Clause 9.3) occur periodically to evaluate performance, risks, and improvements.

What are the consequences of non-compliance with **AS9100**?

**Non-compliance with AS9100 risks certification suspension, loss of supplier approval, and exclusion from OEM contracts via OASIS delisting.** Audits identify nonconformities requiring root-cause analysis (considering human factors) and corrective actions; persistent issues lead to major nonconformities, failed recertification, supply chain disqualification, and potential safety incidents with regulatory or liability exposure.

An **AS9100** be mapped to other international frameworks?

**Yes, AS9100D aligns with Annex SL's 10-clause structure, enabling mapping to compatible management systems.** Its ISO 9001:2015 base supports integration for shared processes like risk-based thinking (Clause 6.1), performance evaluation (Clause 9), and improvement (Clause 10), while aerospace additions like product safety enhance interoperability without clause conflicts.

What is the first step to begin implementing **AS9100**?

**The first step to implement AS9100 is conducting a gap analysis against AS9100D requirements.** Review current processes versus Clauses 4-10, identify gaps in aerospace controls (e.g., configuration management), define QMS scope (Clause 4.3), and prioritize high-risk areas like Clause 8 via cross-functional teams, producing a remediation plan with timelines and resources.

DORA vs AS9100

Standards Comparison

DORA

Mandatory

2023

EU regulation for digital operational resilience in financial sector

AS9100

Mandatory

2016

International standard for aerospace quality management systems.

Quick Verdict

DORA mandates ICT resilience for EU financial entities against cyber threats via risk frameworks and testing, while AS9100 certifies quality systems for aerospace firms emphasizing safety, configuration, and counterfeit controls. Firms adopt DORA for compliance, AS9100 for market access.

Digital Operational Resilience

DORA

Digital Operational Resilience Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554)

Cost

€€€€

Complexity

High

Implementation Time

18-24 months

Key Features

Mandates comprehensive ICT risk management frameworks
Standardizes 4-hour initial incident reporting timelines
Requires triennial TLPT for critical financial entities
Oversees critical third-party providers with ESAs supervision
Harmonizes resilience standards across EU financial sector

Quality Management

AS9100

AS9100D Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, Defense

Cost

€€€€

Complexity

High

Implementation Time

12-18 months

Key Features

Configuration management for product integrity
Product safety planning across lifecycle
Counterfeit parts prevention controls
Operational risk management in processes
Enhanced supplier evaluation and monitoring

Detailed Analysis

A comprehensive look at the specific requirements, scope, and impact of each standard.

DORA Details

What It Is

Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), formally Regulation (EU) 2022/2554, is a transformative EU regulation enhancing digital operational resilience in the financial sector against ICT risks like cyberattacks and failures. It targets 20 financial entity types (e.g., banks, insurers) and critical ICT third-party providers (CTPPs) across 27 member states, using a proactive, risk-based, proportional approach.

Key Components

**ICT Risk ManagementComprehensive frameworks for risk identification, mitigation, and annual reviews.
**Incident Reporting4-hour initial, 72-hour intermediate notifications for major incidents.
**Resilience TestingAnnual basic tests; triennial threat-led penetration testing (TLPT).
**Third-Party OversightDue diligence, monitoring, ESAs-led supervision of CTPPs. Compliance enforced via RTS/ITS, with fines up to 2% turnover.

Why Organizations Use It

Legal mandate ahead of January 17, 2025 deadline.
Mitigates systemic cyber risks (74% ransomware hit rate).
Builds stakeholder trust, reduces outage impacts like CrowdStrike.
Harmonizes rules, drives cybersecurity investments (€10-15B EU-wide).

Implementation Overview

Conduct gap analyses, deploy tools for reporting/testing, revise vendor contracts. Applies to ~22,000 EU entities proportionally by size/complexity. Involves training, simulations; ongoing audits, no formal certification but ESAs enforcement.

AS9100 Details

What It Is

AS9100D (AS9100:2016) is the international quality management system (QMS) standard for aviation, space, and defense organizations. It extends ISO 9001:2015 with over 100 aerospace-specific requirements, using a process-based, risk-oriented approach to ensure product safety and supply chain integrity.

Key Components

10-clause Annex SL structure covering context, leadership, planning, support, operation, evaluation, and improvement.
Aerospace additions: configuration management (8.1.2), product safety (8.1.3), counterfeit prevention (8.1.4), operational risk (8.1.1).
Built on risk-based thinking, human factors, and supplier controls.
Certification via accredited third-party audits (Stage 1/2, surveillance).

Why Organizations Use It

Meets OEM/contractual mandates for market access.
Reduces defects, improves delivery, lowers costs.
Enhances safety, traceability, and stakeholder trust.
Drives competitive edge via OASIS visibility.

Implementation Overview

Phased: gap analysis, process design, training, audits (6-18 months).
Applies to manufacturers, suppliers, MROs globally.
Requires documented processes, internal audits, management reviews.

Key Differences

Aspect	DORA	AS9100
Scope	ICT risk management, incident reporting, resilience testing, third-party oversight	Quality management with aerospace additions: configuration, safety, counterfeit prevention
Industry	EU financial sector (20 entity types)	Global aviation, space, defense manufacturing
Nature	Mandatory EU regulation	Voluntary certification standard
Testing	Annual basic, triennial TLPT by authorities	Stage 1/2 audits, annual surveillance, 3-year recertification
Penalties	Up to 2% global turnover fines	Loss of certification, no legal fines

Scope

DORA

ICT risk management, incident reporting, resilience testing, third-party oversight

AS9100

Quality management with aerospace additions: configuration, safety, counterfeit prevention

Industry

DORA

EU financial sector (20 entity types)

AS9100

Global aviation, space, defense manufacturing

Nature

DORA

Mandatory EU regulation

AS9100

Voluntary certification standard

Testing

DORA

Annual basic, triennial TLPT by authorities

AS9100

Stage 1/2 audits, annual surveillance, 3-year recertification

Penalties

DORA

Up to 2% global turnover fines

AS9100

Loss of certification, no legal fines

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about DORA and AS9100

DORA FAQ

AS9100 FAQ

You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

Measuring CIS Controls v8.1 in the Real World: KPIs, Dashboards, and Automated Evidence for Continuous Assurance

Master CIS Controls v8.1 measurement with essential KPIs, executive-ready dashboards, and automated evidence collection for continuous assurance. Make complianc

PDPA Cross-Border Transfer Rules Decoded: Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan Mechanisms Compared with Practical Implementation Templates

Decode PDPA cross-border transfers for Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan. Statutory excerpts, approved mechanisms, SCC templates. Harmonize with GDPR, navigate exempt

The Regulatory Radar: How Data-Driven Compliance Tools Provide Strategic Foresight

Unlock strategic foresight with data-driven compliance tools. Act as your regulatory radar: real-time monitoring, automated insights, and 3x cost cuts. Anticipa

Run Maturity Assessments with GRADUM

Transform your compliance journey with our AI-powered assessment platform

Assess your organization's maturity across multiple standards and regulations including ISO 27001, DORA, NIS2, NIST, GDPR, and hundreds more. Get actionable insights and track your progress with collaborative, AI-powered evaluations.

100+ Standards & Regulations

AI-Powered Insights

Collaborative Assessments

Actionable Recommendations

Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages

K-PIPA vs LEED

K-PIPA vs LEED: Compare Korea's strict privacy law & global green building cert. Expert insights on compliance, strategies & implementation for Asia-Pacific success. Dive in!

ISO 9001 vs AEO

Explore ISO 9001 vs AEO: Compare quality management certification & Authorized Economic Operator status. Key differences, benefits, requirements & implementation tips for global success.

POPIA vs 23 NYCRR 500

Compare POPIA vs 23 NYCRR 500: SA privacy law meets NYDFS cyber rules. Decode scope gaps, rights, security duties & compliance wins for global ops. Master now!

DORA

AS9100

Quick Verdict

DORA

Key Features

AS9100

Key Features

Detailed Analysis

DORA Details

What It Is

Key Components

Why Organizations Use It

Implementation Overview

AS9100 Details

What It Is

Key Components

Why Organizations Use It

Implementation Overview

Key Differences

Scope

Industry

Nature

Testing

Penalties

Frequently Asked Questions

DORA FAQ

What is the primary objective of DORA?

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with DORA?

Does DORA require an external audit or third-party certification?

How often should an assessment for DORA be performed?

What are the consequences of non-compliance with DORA?

An DORA be mapped to other international frameworks?

What is the first step to begin implementing DORA?

AS9100 FAQ

What is the primary objective of AS9100?

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with AS9100?

Does AS9100 require an external audit or third-party certification?

How often should an assessment for AS9100 be performed?

What are the consequences of non-compliance with AS9100?

An AS9100 be mapped to other international frameworks?

What is the first step to begin implementing AS9100?

You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

Measuring CIS Controls v8.1 in the Real World: KPIs, Dashboards, and Automated Evidence for Continuous Assurance

PDPA Cross-Border Transfer Rules Decoded: Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan Mechanisms Compared with Practical Implementation Templates

The Regulatory Radar: How Data-Driven Compliance Tools Provide Strategic Foresight

Run Maturity Assessments with GRADUM

Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages

K-PIPA vs LEED

ISO 9001 vs AEO

POPIA vs 23 NYCRR 500