「nis2」の検索結果

NIS2 Compliance Navigator — scope classification, Art. 21 gap analysis (0-4 maturity scoring), and compliance roadmap under EU Directive 2022/2555 with deep German BSIG-neu coverage and profiles for Italy, France, Netherlands, Austria, Spain. Use when: (1) User mentions "NIS2", "NIS-2", "BSIG", "BSIG-neu", "NIS2UmsuCG", "Cyberbeveiligingswet", "Loi Résilience", "NISG", "decreto legislativo 138", (2) User asks if their organization falls under NIS2 or needs a cybersecurity compliance assessment, (3) User mentions essential/important entities, Annex I/II, BSI registration, § 30 BSIG, incident reporting, management body liability, supply chain security, (4) User wants a NIS2 gap analysis, readiness assessment, or compliance roadmap, (5) User asks about NIS2 fines, enforcement, or Nachweispflicht, (6) User asks about NIS2 in any EU Member State.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

NIS2 Directive (EU 2022/2555) compliance for critical infrastructure entities, covering the 10 minimum security measures. Use for NIS2 compliance assessments, entity scope analysis, supply chain security, and incident reporting readiness.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

EU NIS2 Directive (Directive (EU) 2022/2555) compliance advisor for essential and important entities: entity classification, Art. 21 risk management measures, Art. 23 incident reporting timelines (24h/72h/1 month), Art. 20 governance obligations, supply chain security (Art. 21(2)(d); coordinated risk assessments Art. 22), gap assessments, policy drafting, ISO 27001 alignment, and penalty exposure analysis. Also covers Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, the technical/methodological sub-requirements for Art. 21(2) and the significant-incident thresholds binding on DNS/cloud/data-centre/MSP/MSSP/trust-service and other digital entities. Use for NIS2 readiness, transposition questions, ENISA technical implementation guidance, significant-incident thresholds, supervisory differences between essential and important entities, and cross-border coordination.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Risk-based vendor assessment framework for IT service providers, technology vendors, and third-party partners under DORA, NIS2, GDPR. Provides three-phase process (Initial Screening / Detailed Assessment / Final Evaluation), six-dimension risk scoring (Financial/Operational/Compliance/Security/Reputational/Strategic) with weighted matrices, full DORA Art. 28-30 contractual checklist, NIS2 Art. 21(2) security measures enumeration, GDPR Art. 28 documentation checks, red flags per dimension, trigger-based review criteria, and document templates. Use when: (1) Evaluating new vendors or technology providers, (2) Conducting critical ICT third-party due diligence under DORA, (3) Performing supply chain security assessment under NIS2, (4) Creating vendor onboarding documentation, (5) Establishing ongoing vendor monitoring, (6) Assessing concentration risk, or (7) Generating executive vendor risk reports.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

EU NIS2 Directive (Directive (EU) 2022/2555) compliance advisor for essential and important entities: entity classification, Art. 21 risk management measures, Art. 23 incident reporting timelines (24h/72h/1 month), Art. 20 governance obligations, supply chain security (Art. 21(2)(d); coordinated risk assessments Art. 22), gap assessments, policy drafting, ISO 27001 alignment, and penalty exposure analysis. Also covers Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, the technical/methodological sub-requirements for Art. 21(2) and the significant-incident thresholds binding on DNS/cloud/data-centre/MSP/MSSP/trust-service and other digital entities. Use for NIS2 readiness, transposition questions, ENISA technical implementation guidance, significant-incident thresholds, supervisory differences between essential and important entities, and cross-border coordination.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when reviewing, designing, or modifying Java enterprise systems from a maintainer-authored or maintainer-sanitized NIS2 engineering evidence inventory. Supports essential or important entities, critical-sector services, managed service providers, supply-chain dependencies, and cybersecurity incident escalation obligations without ingesting raw code, logs, runbooks, tickets, provider documents, or other operational free text. Part of Plinth Toolkit

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

A high-level conceptual mapping from Active Directory attack techniques to the compliance controls they touch. Kerberoasting relates to authentication and logging, so it brushes ENS op.acc.5 / op.exp.8, NIS2 Art.21(2)(h), DORA RTS Art.9 / Art.21. Use this when a reader wants to understand which regulatory control an AD finding relates to, or to add an orientation note to a technical finding. This is a conceptual, orientative mapping only; it is NOT an auditor-defensible, curated, ID-by-ID control matrix. Covers ENS (op.acc.*, op.exp.*), NIS2 (Directive 2022/2555 Art.21), and DORA (RTS 2024/1774).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when identifying cybersecurity-specific regulations and incident reporting obligations. Covers NIS2, DORA, SEC cyber disclosure rules, CISA incident reporting, state breach notification laws, cyber insurance requirements, and security certification frameworks. USE FOR: NIS2, DORA, SEC cybersecurity rules, CISA, breach notification, incident reporting, SOC 2, ISO 27001, cyber insurance, FedRAMP, StateRAMP, CMMC, data breach response DO NOT USE FOR: implementing security controls (use security skills), security testing tools (use security/security-testing), general data privacy (use privacy-data-protection)

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Compliance OS — meta-orchestrator that lets compliance teams CONFIGURE which frameworks apply, COMPUTE cross-framework control overlap, SIMULATE internal audits, and CONSOLIDATE evidence across multiple frameworks. Four decisions: (1) Given a company profile, which of the 12 supported frameworks apply (ISO 27001/13485/42001/14971, EU AI Act, MDR 745, GDPR, SOC 2, FDA QSR, NIST CSF 2.0, NIS2, HIPAA)? (2) Across selected frameworks, which controls overlap and how much evidence reuses? (3) For a given framework + scope, what does a realistic mock audit produce — drawing from the 205-scenario library? (4) Across selected frameworks, what's the unified evidence checklist with reuse map? Use when standing up a multi-framework program, planning the annual audit calendar, or preparing for certification stage 1. Does NOT replace per-framework skills (it orchestrates them).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Expert third-party risk management (TPRM) advisor — a vendor risk analyst for the full lifecycle: risk-based vendor tiering, tailored due-diligence questionnaires (SIG-style or mapped to ISO 27001, SOC 2, DORA, NIS2, HIPAA), SOC 2 Type II report review (exceptions, carve-outs, CUECs, bridge letters), DPA and sub-processor review under GDPR Art. 28, contract security addenda (DORA Art. 30 provisions), ongoing monitoring programmes, and vendor offboarding. Use this skill whenever a user mentions vendor risk, supplier due diligence, third-party assessments, security questionnaires, reviewing a vendor's SOC 2 report, vendor tiering, fourth parties or sub-processors, supply chain security requirements, DORA ICT third-party rules, business associate agreements, or exit/termination of a vendor. Also trigger for 'a customer sent us a questionnaire' and 'how do I assess this vendor' style requests.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Expert DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 — Digital Operational Resilience Act) compliance advisor for EU financial entities. Use this skill whenever a user asks about DORA compliance, ICT risk management frameworks, ICT incident classification or reporting, threat-led penetration testing (TLPT), ICT third-party risk management, Register of Information, contractual provisions with ICT providers, ICT concentration risk, oversight of critical ICT third-party service providers (CTPPs), or any DORA RTS/ITS obligation. Also trigger for: "DORA gap analysis", "DORA readiness", "Art. 6 ICT risk framework", "Art. 17 incident reporting", "Art. 26 TLPT", "Art. 28 third-party policy", "Art. 30 contractual provisions", "Register of Information CIR 2024/2956", "critical TPSP designation", "DORA vs NIS2", "DORA simplified framework", or EBA/ESMA/EIOPA digital resilience guidance.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Assess, report, and manage serious incidents involving high-risk AI systems under Article 73 EU AI Act. Covers incident qualification, deadline buckets (2/10/15 days), authority notification, deployer duties (Art. 26(5)), cross-regulation mapping (GDPR/NIS2/MDR), corrective measures, and DACH-specific routing. Use when asked to evaluate whether an AI incident is reportable, draft an Article 73 notification, identify the right authority, or build an AI incident response process.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Systematic contract negotiation strategies for technology services agreements with German/EU law specificity. Provides three-position framework (provider-favorable, balanced, client-favorable), deal-size calibration (€100K to €10M+), five-tier objection handling with regulatory leverage (GDPR, DORA, NIS2, BGB), concession packaging, and position matrices for liability, IP, payment, SLA, data protection, and termination. Use when: (1) Developing negotiation strategies for SaaS, cloud, or managed services agreements, (2) Preparing position papers and fallback positions, (3) Responding to counterparty objections, (4) Structuring concession packages that protect core economics, (5) Calibrating tactics to deal size and leverage, or (6) Applying German contract law constraints (BGB §§ 305-310 AGB, § 309 Nr. 7 liability limits, § 288 statutory interest).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when an application or system — including one built quickly with AI coding agents — needs a security review with regulatory grounding: a STRIDE threat model, a LINDDUN privacy threat model, a dependency exposure screen against live CVE / CISA-KEV / EPSS data, or a selected, non-exhaustive screen of which EU security obligations (GDPR, NIS2, Cyber Resilience Act, AI Act) may apply and which need determination. Orchestrates the server-enforced threat-modeling workflows of the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector and grounds every regulatory statement in officially published text fetched at answer time — scope, role, and application-date limits stated, never a compliance verdict. Never simulates a workflow and never answers legal questions from model memory.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generates standalone interactive HTML "deal cards" that translate complex regulations into negotiation-ready reference tools, systematically distinguishing mandatory obligations from negotiable implementation choices. Use when the user needs an interactive regulatory guide for (1) contract negotiation support, (2) client education or internal training, (3) regulatory briefings for commercial stakeholders, or (4) structured comparison between required and flexible compliance paths. Primary focus on EU digital regulation (Data Act, AI Act, CRA, DORA, NIS2, GDPR) but the structural pattern transfers to any regulation where separating hard obligations from implementation choice is the point. Supports bilingual output where the jurisdiction calls for it.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when a security incident, data breach, or actively exploited vulnerability raises the question "who must we notify, where, and by when?" Screens one incident across the EU reporting regimes — NIS2, GDPR, DORA, and the Cyber Resilience Act — determines which duties fire for each involved entity's roles, resolves the receiving authority per regime and member state from served national law, and produces a deadline table in which every duty, authority, and deadline is cited from official publisher text fetched live through the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector. Never answers from model memory.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Expert DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 — Digital Operational Resilience Act) compliance advisor for EU financial entities. Use this skill whenever a user asks about DORA compliance, ICT risk management frameworks, ICT incident classification or reporting, threat-led penetration testing (TLPT), ICT third-party risk management, Register of Information, contractual provisions with ICT providers, ICT concentration risk, oversight of critical ICT third-party service providers (CTPPs), or any DORA RTS/ITS obligation. Also trigger for: "DORA gap analysis", "DORA readiness", "Art. 6 ICT risk framework", "Art. 17 incident reporting", "Art. 26 TLPT", "Art. 28 third-party policy", "Art. 30 contractual provisions", "Register of Information CIR 2024/2956", "critical TPSP designation", "DORA vs NIS2", "DORA simplified framework", or EBA/ESMA/EIOPA digital resilience guidance.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyzes how multiple regulations interact for a specific product, service, or business model. Identifies where obligations overlap, reinforce, complement, duplicate, or conflict; builds a priority matrix; produces an integrated compliance timeline; and estimates the total compliance burden. Use when (1) scoping a new product or service against the full regulatory landscape before launch, (2) conducting M&A due diligence on a target's multi-regulation exposure, (3) building a strategic compliance roadmap where single-regulation analyses miss the interactions, (4) advising on complex situations where regulations touch the same conduct from different angles, or (5) estimating budget and resourcing for multi-regulation compliance. Primary coverage of EU digital regulation (GDPR, Data Act, AI Act, CRA, NIS2, DORA, DMA, DSA, ePrivacy) and national implementations; the framework extends to any jurisdiction where overlapping regulatory regimes apply to the same activity.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Think and work like an expert Botanist. Use when a task calls for Botanist judgment. Reasons from morphology, floras (FNA/Jepson/eFlora), voucher herbarium specimens (Darwin Core, Index Herbariorum), nomenclature (IPNI/POWO/Madrid Code), APG IV phylogeny, DNA barcoding (rbcL/matK/ITS2), community ecology (vegan adonis2/betadisper, TRY traits), and CITES/ABS ethics; treats vegetative mis-ID, pseudoreplication, PERMDISP confounds, and unvouchered GBIF records as first-class failure modes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Deutsches IT-Recht & DSGVO: Ersteinschätzungen zu Datenschutz, Verträgen, AGB, Impressum, Cookies, NIS2, EU AI Act. Keine Rechtsberatung. Nutzen bei DSGVO- und IT-Rechtsfragen (DE/EU).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

End-to-end 16S/ITS amplicon workflow from demultiplexed FASTQ to a consensus differential-abundance result, orchestrating cutadapt primer removal, per-run DADA2 ASV inference (learnErrors/mergeSequenceTables/removeBimeraDenovo), region-matched taxonomy assignment, a SEPP/Greengenes2 tree, alpha/beta diversity at a declared sampling depth (phyloseq/vegan, adonis2 paired with betadisper), compositional DA as a consensus of >=2 tools (ALDEx2/ANCOM-BC2) on unrarefied counts, and optional PICRUSt2 functional prediction gated on NSTI. Covers the stage-ordering decisions (primers before truncation, per-run error model, rarefy for diversity not DA, predicted potential not activity) and defers each per-step choice to the six microbiome skills. Use when staging an amplicon study end to end or chaining ASV inference, taxonomy, diversity, and differential abundance. For shotgun reads see workflows/metagenomics-pipeline.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。