This blog is the fourth of our Tales From the Trenches: CRA Lessons Learned blog series. Our objective in developing these blogs is to help manufacturers, software vendors, and connected-product providers understand practical implementation realities of CRA compliance programs. We will draw on lessons we have learned from working with our customers and in talking to industry leaders. Organizations are learning that sustainable compliance requires governance, visibility, accountability, and lifecycle management capabilities that extend well beyond traditional cybersecurity activities. Building a secure product is not enough to achieve CRA compliance.
Why Post-Market Cybersecurity Is Becoming the Defining Challenge of CRA Readiness
For decades, most product development organizations have operated under a relatively simple model: design the product, test the product, launch the product, and move on to the next release or next product.
Success was measured based on completing development on time, meeting performance requirements, passing quality testing, and implementing all product requirements.
The European Union’s Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) has fundamentally changed the measure of success.
Product launch is no longer the finish line. It is the starting point.
Historically, secure product development efforts focused on secure development, risk assessments, conformity assessments, and technical documentation. This has shifted with the adoption of the CRA. Manufacturers and software vendors are increasingly recognizing that some of the most significant CRA obligations begin after products reach customers.
Companies must now implement programs that will remain active throughout the supported life of the product. These include vulnerability management, coordinated disclosure, security updates, incident reporting, software supply chain monitoring, customer communications, and extended product support commitments.
For many organizations, this represents a major operational shift. The question is no longer:
“Is this product secure enough to ship?”
The question has become:
“Can we sustain cybersecurity accountability for the next five, seven, or even ten years?”
Executive Insights
Many organizations initially approached CRA compliance like other cybersecurity compliance efforts, as a product development initiative. They assumed that it was a straightforward process, perform security assessments, implement required security features, complete required testing, and document compliance. However, organizations are learning that this view dramatically underestimates the scope of the regulation.
The CRA introduces a lifecycle model for cybersecurity accountability. Manufacturers are expected to manage and disclose vulnerabilities, provide security updates, and notify customers of any vulnerabilities or issues. They must also maintain ongoing visibility into vulnerabilities, software dependencies, security updates, customer notifications, incident response activities, support commitments, and product risk posture.
This represents a significant shift in how product security is managed. Under the CRA, organizations must invest in long-term operational capabilities that persist long after engineering teams move to the next product release or new product development effort.
CRA readiness is not just about product security. It also requires product lifecycle governance.
Why Post-Release Obligations Are So Challenging
Maintaining cybersecurity, and CRA audit readiness, after product release is substantially more difficult than many organizations initially expected. Several factors contribute to the challenge.
Products Continue to Evolve
Software updates, feature enhancements, updates to third-party components, and new customer use cases constantly change product risk profiles. A risk assessment completed during product development or at product launch may be quickly outdated.
Vulnerabilities Never Stop Emerging
Security researchers and bad actors continue to find new vulnerabilities affecting operating systems, open-source components, commercial software, and hardware platforms. Organizations must continuously evaluate whether these vulnerabilities affect released products.
Product Teams Move On
Once a product is released, engineering teams often shift focus to future releases or new product development efforts. Meanwhile, legacy products remain in the field for years, during which time institutional knowledge can disappear. Without formal lifecycle processes and strong documentation processes, knowledge of product capabilities and security architecture can be lost.
Software Supply Chains Grow More Complex
Modern products often contain dozens or even hundreds of software components, each of which potentially introduces vulnerabilities. Companies must have visibility into each component and all updates to these components.
Customer Notification Requirements
The CRA requires organization to notify customers of newly discovered vulnerabilities, security updates, and changes to support terms. Meeting these mandates requires the development of operational capabilities that many organizations have not previously developed.
Real world challenges
Many companies reuse software components across multiple systems. If a critical vulnerability to an open-source or proprietary software library is discovered, it can be challenging for organizations to manage the update and customer notification process.
A single vulnerability may impact multiple versions of several different products. identifying affected products may require searching multiple products, pulling documentation from disparate systems, reviewing historical software bills of materials, and coordinating across engineering teams.
Addressing the vulnerability itself may be easily manageable. But without centralized documentation repositories including full Software Bill of Materials (SBOMs), it can be challenging to determine which products are impacted.
Companies also face challenges in meeting post-market CRA requirements due to organizational structure issues.
Post-release vulnerability management responsibilities are often distributed across product teams, support organizations, and engineering groups. As a result, gathering documentation for compliance audits may prove more difficult than expected.
Companies supporting multiple product families across business units face similar challenges. In many cases, each team may manage updates, support processes, and vulnerability tracking differently.
CRA readiness efforts require standardized processes across teams along with executive responsibly to coordinate compliance efforts.
Best Practices for Sustainable CRA Compliance
Organizations making the most progress are treating post-market cybersecurity as a permanent operational discipline rather than a compliance exercise.
Build Lifecycle Security Programs
Cybersecurity responsibilities must begin at product conception and continue for as long as the product is supported. Organizations should establish formal processes covering vulnerability monitoring, security updates, incident response, customer communications, and product retirement
Maintain Continuous Product Visibility
Organizations need current visibility into product inventories, software components, third-party dependencies, product ownership, and support status.
Without visibility, effective post-market management becomes impossible.
Establish Clear Ownership
Every product should have clearly defined accountability for security monitoring, vulnerability evaluation, update management, and compliance reporting
Undefined ownership frequently leads to gaps.
Automate Where Possible
Manual processes become increasingly difficult as product portfolios grow. Automation can improve vulnerability tracking, evidence collection, SBOM management, compliance reporting, and audit readiness.
Integrate Compliance into Product Operations
Organizations should avoid treating CRA activities as separate compliance projects. Instead, CRA requirements must become part of standard product management and support operations.
Common Pitfalls
Many organizations encounter similar obstacles as they begin addressing post-market obligations.
Viewing Compliance as a Pre-Release Activity
Perhaps the most common mistake is assuming compliance ends at launch. In reality, many obligations begin after deployment. And these are often the most difficult obligations to comply with.
Underestimating Long-Term Support Requirements
Organizations frequently focus on development activities while overlooking the resources required to sustain ongoing security commitments.
Maintaining Incomplete Product Inventories
If organizations cannot identify what products are deployed and what software they contain, responding to vulnerabilities becomes difficult.
Relying on Fragmented Documentation
Evidence scattered across multiple systems creates operational inefficiencies and compliance risks.
Treating Security Updates as Engineering Tasks Only
Security updates often require coordination among engineering, legal, support, product management, quality, and executive leadership teams.
Action Items for OEMs and Software Vendors
Organizations seeking to strengthen post-market CRA readiness should consider the following actions.
Immediate Priorities
- Review current product support and maintenance processes.
- Inventory all supported products and software platforms.
- Establish formal vulnerability monitoring procedures.
- Identify ownership for post-market cybersecurity activities.
- Review software component visibility and SBOM practices.
- Assess incident response and disclosure readiness.
- Evaluate customer communication processes.
- Identify evidence-management gaps.
Organizations that start these efforts early will be significantly better positioned as CRA enforcement deadlines approach.
How OmniTrust Certify Can Help
One of the most consistent lessons emerging from CRA readiness programs is that organizations can complete an initial assessment relatively quickly. The real challenge is keeping information current as products evolve, vulnerabilities emerge, suppliers change, and regulations continue to mature.
OmniTrust Certify helps to automate this process. Certify provides a centralized system of record for product cybersecurity and compliance throughout the entire product lifecycle.
With OmniTrust Certify, manufacturers and software vendors centralize every connected product into a living Product Profile that continuously tracks cyber risk, regulatory conformance, evidence, ownership, and product changes—keeping engineering, security, product, and compliance teams working from the same version of the truth.
Rather than treating CRA compliance as a one-time project, Certify enables organizations to establish a sustainable lifecycle approach to cybersecurity governance.
Summary
The organizations that will succeed under the CRA are not simply those that can build secure products. They are the organizations that can continuously maintain, monitor, document, and defend the security of those products throughout their operational life.
That is why, under the Cyber Resilience Act, the real work begins after product release.
Subscribe to the Blog on our blog homepage for notifications on future blogs in this series which continues with “Blog #5: The 24-Hour Reporting Clock is Really a Visibility Problem”
