IoT Product CVD Policy Template
A CVD policy template specifically adapted for IoT device manufacturers, addressing firmware update constraints, long device lifetimes, OTA patching limitations, and the challenge of reaching end users for IoT products. Covers CRA Articles 13 and 14 obligations and Annex I security requirements.
Policy Statement & IoT Context
Article 13(1)[COMPANY NAME] designs and manufactures [DESCRIPTION OF IoT PRODUCTS, e.g. smart home devices, connected sensors, wearable health monitors]. Our products are typically deployed in environments where users have limited visibility into software updates and where devices may remain in use for many years.
We take security vulnerabilities in our products seriously. This Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) Policy governs how we receive, assess, and respond to reports of security vulnerabilities across our IoT product portfolio.
This policy is published in accordance with Article 13 of the EU Cyber Resilience Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/2847) and reflects our commitment to ISO/IEC 29147.
Given the nature of IoT deployments — including constrained devices, OTA update dependencies, and diverse deployment environments — our response timelines and remediation approaches may differ from those applied to conventional software. We explain these differences openly in this policy.
Acknowledging the IoT-specific constraints up front sets realistic expectations for researchers while demonstrating that you understand your product category. Regulators and auditors respond well to policies that show domain awareness rather than a generic template applied without thought.
Product Scope (by Model and Firmware)
Article 13(4), Annex IThis policy covers the following [COMPANY NAME] products and associated firmware versions:
| Product Name | Model Numbers | Supported Firmware | End of Support | |--------------|---------------|--------------------|-----------------| | [PRODUCT 1] | [MODEL A, B] | [Firmware 2.x and later] | [DATE] | | [PRODUCT 2] | [MODEL C] | [Firmware 1.5 and later] | [DATE] | | [PRODUCT 3] | [MODEL D, E, F] | [All active firmware] | [DATE] |
Associated cloud services and mobile applications:
- [APP NAME] for iOS and Android (all versions on actively supported OS versions)
- Cloud API at [API ENDPOINT]
Products not covered by this policy:
- Products at end-of-support (see [SUPPORT PAGE URL])
- Products manufactured by third parties sold under our brand without modification
- Vulnerabilities requiring physical hardware modification
For products approaching end-of-support, we publish a security support timeline at [LIFECYCLE URL]. We encourage owners of end-of-support devices to upgrade to a supported model.
IoT manufacturers often have large, fragmented product portfolios. A table format with model numbers and firmware versions gives researchers the information they need to confirm whether a specific device is in scope before they invest effort in a report. Publishing the end-of-support timeline demonstrates long-term commitment to security.
Reporting Channel
Article 13(1)To report a security vulnerability in any [COMPANY NAME] product, please use:
Preferred: Submit via our vulnerability disclosure portal: [PORTAL URL]
Email: [[email protected]] PGP encryption available — key fingerprint: [FINGERPRINT] Key available at: [KEY URL]
security.txt: https://[YOUR-DOMAIN]/.well-known/security.txt
Please include in your report:
- The affected product name, model number, and firmware version
- A description of the vulnerability and its potential impact
- Steps to reproduce (including device configuration if relevant)
- Whether the vulnerability requires local network access or is remotely exploitable
- Whether a companion app or cloud service is involved
- Your contact information (optional — anonymous reports accepted)
We accept reports in [LANGUAGE(S)] and treat all reports as confidential. Please do not disclose vulnerability details publicly before coordinating with us.
Asking reporters to specify whether the vulnerability requires local network or remote access is critical for IoT — it significantly affects severity and urgency. Many IoT vulnerabilities require LAN access or Bluetooth proximity, which changes the risk profile substantially.
IoT-Specific Triage Factors (OTA Feasibility, Fleet Impact)
Annex I, Article 13[COMPANY NAME] applies standard CVSS 4.0 severity scoring to all reported vulnerabilities. For IoT products, we additionally assess the following factors that may affect priority and response approach:
OTA Update Feasibility
- Can the affected firmware be updated over-the-air (OTA) without user intervention?
- If OTA is not available, what is the update mechanism and what user action is required?
- Devices that cannot receive OTA updates require additional consideration — see the Firmware Update & Patching Process section.
Fleet Impact
- Estimated number of devices in the field running the affected firmware version
- Geographic distribution of the fleet (EU, North America, other)
- Whether vulnerable devices are concentrated in specific deployment types (e.g. industrial, healthcare, home)
Exploitation Difficulty in Real Deployments
- Does exploitation require the attacker to be on the same local network?
- Is the vulnerability exploitable from the internet?
- Does the companion app or cloud backend need to be involved?
Safety and Privacy Impact
- Could exploitation of this vulnerability cause physical harm to users?
- Does the vulnerability expose personal data (location, health, behavioural data)?
- Could the device be used as a pivot point into a broader home or enterprise network?
Our triage outcome and priority band will reflect all of these factors in addition to the CVSS base score.
CVSS base scores alone are a poor guide for IoT vulnerability prioritisation. A CVSS 9.0 vulnerability requiring local Bluetooth proximity may be less urgent than a CVSS 6.5 cloud API vulnerability exploitable at scale. Documenting these factors publicly shows researchers that you apply nuanced judgement.
Response Commitments
Article 13[COMPANY NAME] commits to the following response milestones:
| Milestone | Commitment | |-----------|------------| | Acknowledgment | Within 48 hours of receipt | | Initial triage outcome | Within [5] business days | | Severity assessment shared with reporter | Within [10] business days | | Status update if no patch available | Every [30] days | | Patch or documented workaround | See target remediation times below | | Security advisory | Published upon or after patch availability |
Target Remediation Times (IoT-adjusted):
| Severity | Target (OTA-capable devices) | Target (non-OTA devices) | |----------|------------------------------|---------------------------| | Critical | [30] calendar days | [45] calendar days | | High | [60] calendar days | [90] calendar days | | Medium | [90] calendar days | [120] calendar days | | Low | [180] calendar days | Best effort |
IoT remediation timelines are longer than web software timelines due to the complexity of firmware build, test, and release processes. We will not use this as a justification for indefinite delays.
Publishing IoT-adjusted timelines with honest acknowledgment of why they differ from web software timelines is far better than stating generic 90-day timelines you cannot meet. Researchers understand IoT constraints — what they find unacceptable is unexplained delays and missed commitments.
Firmware Update & Patching Process
Annex I, Article 13[COMPANY NAME] delivers security patches via the following mechanisms depending on product type:
OTA-capable products
For products with automatic OTA update capability, security patches are delivered automatically within [X] days of release. Users can verify their firmware version in [APP / DEVICE INTERFACE]. Critical security patches may be pushed with minimal advance notice to minimise exposure windows.
Products requiring manual update
For products that require manual firmware update:
- We publish the firmware update at [DOWNLOAD URL]
- We notify registered owners via [EMAIL / APP PUSH NOTIFICATION]
- Update instructions are published at [SUPPORT URL]
- For Critical vulnerabilities, we will contact major resellers and distribution partners to assist with customer notification
Workarounds for unpatched vulnerabilities
Where a patch is not yet available, [COMPANY NAME] will publish interim workarounds at [SECURITY ADVISORY URL] where technically feasible. Workarounds may include:
- Network segmentation or firewall recommendations
- Disabling affected features via the companion app or admin interface
- Configuration changes to reduce attack surface
Partial patch limitations
In some cases, a vulnerability may be inherent in hardware or a deeply integrated third-party component and cannot be fully remediated. In these cases, [COMPANY NAME] will clearly document the residual risk and available mitigations, and will factor the limitation into the product's end-of-life timeline if necessary.
Being explicit about the update mechanisms for different product tiers demonstrates operational awareness. The partial patch limitation clause is important — IoT manufacturers sometimes face vulnerabilities in fixed-function hardware that cannot be patched. Acknowledging this honestly, with mitigation guidance, is better than silence.
End-of-Life and Legacy Device Handling
Annex I, Article 13[COMPANY NAME] maintains a product security support timeline at [SUPPORT PAGE URL].
Minimum security support period: [COMPANY NAME] commits to providing security patches for a minimum of [5] years from the date of last sale of each product model, in accordance with our CRA obligations.
End-of-support notification: We will notify customers and publish a public notice at least [12] months before the security support end date for each product.
Post-support vulnerability handling:
For products that have reached end of security support:
- [COMPANY NAME] will not issue security patches
- [COMPANY NAME] will publish a notification informing users of the security support end and recommending upgrade or device isolation
- We will still accept vulnerability reports for end-of-support products and will publish informational advisories where a significant vulnerability is reported, even without a patch
- We will indicate on the product support page whether any critical unpatched vulnerabilities are known
Legacy device isolation guidance: For end-of-support devices that cannot be replaced, we recommend: [ISOLATION GUIDANCE, e.g. placing on a dedicated VLAN, disabling internet connectivity, disabling remote access features].
CRA Annex I requires manufacturers to handle security vulnerabilities for the expected lifetime of products. Documenting a minimum 5-year support commitment and an end-of-life advisory process demonstrates compliance. The post-support advisory commitment — even without patches — is good practice that maintains user trust.
Article 14 Reporting
Article 14Where a reported vulnerability affecting [COMPANY NAME] IoT products meets the Article 14 threshold — that is, it is actively exploited in the wild, or constitutes a severe security incident — [COMPANY NAME] will:
- Submit an early warning to ENISA within 24 hours of becoming aware
- Submit a full notification to ENISA within 72 hours including severity assessment and initial remediation actions
- Submit a final report within 14 days including root cause analysis and mitigation measures
For IoT products, Article 14 notification is particularly relevant where:
- A vulnerability enables mass exploitation of a large device fleet
- A vulnerability enables attacker access to user home networks at scale
- A vulnerability in a safety-related function (e.g. door lock, alarm system) is actively exploited
- A vulnerability exposes sensitive personal data (health, location, behavioural data) for a significant number of users
Notifications are made to the ENISA Single Reporting Platform (SRP) or the relevant national CSIRT.
Giving IoT-specific examples of Article 14 triggers helps your team apply the threshold correctly. Fleet-scale exploitation and safety-critical vulnerabilities are the most important IoT-specific triggers that go beyond the generic CRA language.
Safe Harbour
[COMPANY NAME] authorises good-faith security research on [COMPANY NAME] IoT products conducted in accordance with this policy.
We will not take legal action against researchers who:
- Follow this policy
- Use only devices they own or have explicit permission to test
- Limit testing to what is strictly necessary to confirm the vulnerability
- Do not access, intercept, or modify data from other users' devices
- Do not conduct testing that disrupts the devices of other users
- Report to us before any public or third-party disclosure
Note on cloud backend testing: Testing of [COMPANY NAME] cloud services or APIs may affect data belonging to other users. Please restrict cloud-side testing to accounts you control. If your research requires access to additional test infrastructure, contact us at [[email protected]] to arrange a dedicated test environment.
[COMPANY NAME] will work to understand and address the vulnerability report before requesting that researchers delay public disclosure.
The IoT safe harbour needs to explicitly address the shared-infrastructure dimension — testing a cloud backend or protocol that is shared across many users' devices creates risks to third parties that are different from single-device testing. Offering a dedicated test environment for researchers who need cloud-side access demonstrates commitment and reduces risk.
Use this template automatically in CVD Portal
CVD Portal generates your CVD policy, tracks acknowledgments, and creates an audit trail — free, forever.
Set up your free portal