Skip to main content
ISA/IEC 62443 is the international standard series for cybersecurity in Industrial Automation and Control Systems (IACS). This document maps Binarly Transparency Platform (BTP) capabilities to the standard parts relevant to product manufacturers, system integrators/service providers, and asset owners operating in OT/ICS environments.
This mapping covers BTP’s direct analytical and reporting capabilities. ISA/IEC 62443 compliance requires organizational, operational, and network-level controls that extend beyond binary analysis tooling. Where BTP provides supporting evidence rather than full coverage, this is explicitly noted.

Applicable Standard Parts

BTP maps to four standard parts across three distinct ISA/IEC 62443 stakeholder roles: Parts 62443-1-x (general terminology), 62443-3-2 (risk assessment methodology), and 62443-3-1 (security technologies TR) address foundational and organizational requirements that are outside BTP’s analytical scope.

Coverage Summary

Coverage levels: Full — BTP directly addresses the requirement. Partial — BTP addresses specific aspects; additional controls required. Evidence — BTP produces artifacts that support compliance evidence; implementation is outside BTP’s scope. Not Covered — Outside BTP’s analytical scope.

IEC 62443-4-1: Secure Product Development Lifecycle

IEC 62443-4-1 defines 8 SDL practices that product suppliers must implement. BTP supports all 8 practices as a binary verification layer in the development pipeline.
Requirement: Security governance, policy, organizational roles, and SDL support infrastructure.BTP Support (Evidence):
  • BTP enforces RBAC with granular roles across organization, product, and image scopes, supporting separation of duties requirements.
  • SSO (SAML/OIDC) and mandatory MFA enforce identity governance requirements.
  • SOC 2 Type 2 certification (available at trust.binarly.io) provides independent third-party attestation of BTP’s security controls.
  • On-premises deployment option (Binarly v3) supports air-gapped or isolated environments required for sensitive ICS product development.
  • API-driven CI/CD integration supports systematic SDL enforcement rather than ad-hoc scanning.
Gaps: Organizational policy authoring, governance documentation, and role assignment workflows are outside BTP’s scope.
Requirement: Threat modeling, product security requirements, third-party and open-source component security requirements including component inventory.BTP Support (Full):BTP directly addresses the component inventory and third-party risk requirements that 62443-4-1 Practice 2 mandates:
  • Binary-derived SBOM (CycloneDX and SPDX): generated from actual compiled binaries rather than vendor-declared manifests, revealing components regardless of documentation accuracy. This satisfies the component inventory obligation for downstream integrators and asset owners.
  • CBOM (CycloneDX): cryptographic material inventory of every algorithm, protocol, key, and certificate in the binary, used to assess cryptographic security requirements (FR 4).
  • Transitive dependency tracking: 8 linkage types (direct, static, dynamic, build, derived, vendored, project, unspecified) provide full traceability of how third-party components are incorporated.
  • Dependency vulnerability mapping: CVE exposure for all detected components including nested transitive dependencies.
The binary-derived approach matters for 62443 compliance: declared SBOMs from vendors frequently omit components. BTP’s ground-truth analysis closes this gap.
Requirement: Secure architecture, attack surface reduction, least privilege by design, design-level security controls.BTP Support (Full for verification; Evidence for design):BTP verifies that secure-by-design requirements were actually implemented in the binary:Binary hardening verification — detects missing mitigations that represent design failures:A component that fails these checks does not meet the secure-by-design baseline for its target Security Level.Attack surface indicators:
  • Unstripped binaries exposing symbol information (weakness/posix/not-stripped)
  • RPATH issues enabling library injection attacks (weakness/posix/rpath-set)
  • Linux kernel hardening configuration findings (weakness/linux/kernel-configuration)
Requirement: Secure coding guidelines, prohibited function lists, static analysis (SAST), and code review.BTP Support (Full):BTP performs binary-level static analysis equivalent to post-compilation SAST — detecting implementation failures that survive code review:Prohibited/unsafe function detection:
  • weakness/posix/unsafe-functions/summary: detects use of strcpy, sprintf, gets, and other functions prohibited by secure coding standards (CERT C, MISRA)
  • Unsafe function usage maps directly to the “prohibited functions list” requirement in 62443-4-1 Practice 4
Binary analysis capabilities:
  • Compiled binary analysis catches issues that source-level SAST misses (inlined functions, LTO artifacts, compiler-introduced patterns)
  • Works without access to source code — critical for third-party component verification
  • Supports architectures used in IACS: x86, ARM32/64, Xtensa
Firmware-specific implementation checks:
  • UEFI SMM handler vulnerabilities: SMRAM corruption, SMM callouts, unsafe pointer dereferences
  • Malicious or suspicious code patterns: packed ELF, code obfuscation, ifuncs abuse, PT_NOTE conversion to PT_LOAD
BTP integrates into CI/CD pipelines (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Jenkins, bash) to enforce these checks at every build.
Requirement: Security test plans, penetration testing, fuzz testing, dynamic analysis (DAST), regression testing.BTP Support (Full for binary V&V; Evidence for active testing):BTP provides binary-level verification and validation that complements active testing:Vulnerability verification:
  • Known vulnerability detection (CVE-mapped) with confidence scoring derived from detection method reliability
  • Unknown vulnerability detection via FwHunt/VulHunt rules for zero-day class vulnerabilities in UEFI, BMC, and embedded firmware
Reachability Analysis — exploitability contextualization:BTP’s Reachability Analysis provides four-tier exploitability classification, directly addressing the 62443-4-1 requirement to assess whether identified vulnerabilities are exploitable in the product context:Undetermined reachability findings show where active penetration testing or fuzz testing is needed to resolve exploitability.Regression testing support:
  • Cross-image comparison via the Compare feature and the Compare Findings API tracks security regressions between builds to confirm previously remediated vulnerabilities have not been reintroduced.
Requirement: Patch development, patch distribution documentation, end-of-life policy, patch verification.BTP Support (Full):Patch verification via cross-image comparison:
  • Scan the patched binary and compare against the pre-patch baseline using the Compare Findings feature
  • API endpoint: POST /api/v4/grids/findings:gridList with filters for both image IDs provides machine-readable delta output for automated patch verification in release pipelines (see Compare Findings API)
VEX status lifecycle management:
  • Update VEX status from under_investigationaffectedfixed as patches progress
  • VEX artifacts accompany firmware update packages to inform downstream asset owners of what was remediated
Patch applicability for asset owners (62443-2-3 integration):
  • SBOM enables asset owners to determine whether a patched component is present in their deployed systems
  • VEX with fixed status and component version range data enables patch prioritization without requiring manual analysis
End-of-life component detection:
  • Dependency findings identify components with known EOL status where the CVE backlog has ceased to be addressed by upstream maintainers
Requirement: Product security documentation for integrators and asset owners, hardening guides.BTP Support (Full for artifact generation; Evidence for authoring):BTP generates the technical artifacts included in security guideline packages delivered with IACS components:The PQC report matters most for IACS components with 10–20+ year operational lifespans that will outlive current cryptographic standards.

IEC 62443-4-2: Component Security Requirements

IEC 62443-4-2 defines Component Requirements (CRs) for embedded devices (EDR), host devices (HDR), network devices (NDR), and software applications (SAR) across the 7 Foundational Requirements (FRs) at Security Levels 1–4.
Scope: Unique entity identification, authentication mechanisms, credential management.BTP Coverage: PartialBTP detects credential and authentication failures embedded in firmware, but does not enforce authentication policy at runtime.Directly detected violations:Gap: Authentication enforcement (IAC at SL 2–4: MFA, hardware tokens, certificate lifecycle management) is a runtime/operational control outside BTP’s scope.
Scope: Least-privilege access control, RBAC enforcement, audit logging of access decisions.BTP Coverage: EvidenceBTP itself implements use control requirements for the platform (RBAC, MFA, SSO), but does not perform automated analysis of access control logic in analyzed binaries.BTP platform-level UC compliance:
  • Granular RBAC: Admin, Analyst, and Viewer roles scoped to Organization, Product, and Image levels
  • All access decisions are logged; audit trail is available for compliance review
  • Mandatory MFA and SSO (SAML/OIDC) enforce authentication before use control is applied
For analyzed components: Use control logic in firmware (privilege separation, permission checking) requires manual review of binary logic or source code analysis. BTP’s reachability analysis can contextualize whether privilege-controlled paths are accessible to untrusted inputs, but automated UC policy verification is not a current BTP capability.
Scope: Protection of hardware, software, and communications against unauthorized modification; secure boot; firmware integrity; malware protection.BTP Coverage: Full.FR 3 (System Integrity) is the foundational requirement most directly addressed by binary analysis:Secure boot and firmware integrity (EDR 3.4):
  • UEFI Secure Boot bypass vulnerabilities: vulnerability/uefi/secure-boot-bypass
  • PKfail and related supply chain compromise of platform keys: vulnerability/uefi/pkfail
  • UEFI boot script vulnerabilities enabling pre-boot compromise
  • BootGuard policy violations
Firmware integrity verification gaps:
  • mitigation/missing-control-flow-integrity: Control Flow Integrity absent — enables hijacking of execution after integrity bypass
  • mitigation/uefi/memory-protection-misconfiguration: UEFI memory protection policies not enforced
  • weakness/posix/not-stripped: Symbols present, reducing reverse engineering barrier for integrity attacks
Malicious and suspicious code (CR 3.8 — Malware protection):
  • malware/known-threat: Binary contains signatures matching known malicious firmware implants
  • malware/uefi/implant-hook-install: Hooks into UEFI boot services — hallmark of firmware persistence implants
  • malware/malicious-behaviour: Behavioral patterns indicative of malicious intent
  • suspicious/posix/packed-elf: Binary packing used to evade integrity scanning
  • suspicious/obfuscated-code: Code obfuscation inconsistent with legitimate firmware
  • suspicious/posix/reverse-text: Anti-analysis technique indicating potential tampering
  • suspicious/posix/pt-note-conversion: PT_NOTE to PT_LOAD conversion — common ELF rootkit technique
Communication integrity:
  • Detection of weak or absent integrity mechanisms in protocol implementations
  • POSIX and UEFI-level unsafe operations enabling memory corruption attacks against integrity controls
Scope: Protection of sensitive data at rest and in transit; encryption algorithm requirements; key management.BTP Coverage: Full.The CBOM and cryptographic finding classes cover FR 4 directly:Weak or non-compliant algorithms:Certificate and key management (CR 4.2, EDR 4.1):Post-quantum readiness (CR 4.x for long-lifecycle components): The PQC Compliance Report identifies all cryptographic algorithms vulnerable to quantum attacks (RSA, ECC, Diffie-Hellman, SHA-1/SHA-256 for signatures), providing:
  • Executive summary with compliance status vs. NIST PQC standards (FIPS 203/204/205)
  • Per-algorithm migration urgency ratings
  • Component-level quantum exposure inventory from CBOM
IACS components with 10–20 year operational lifespans will outlive the cryptographic algorithms protecting them today.
Scope: Network segmentation, zone/conduit enforcement, firewall controls, unidirectional gateways.BTP Coverage: Not Covered.FR 5 is a network-architectural control requirement. BTP analyzes firmware and software binaries for security vulnerabilities — it does not perform network traffic analysis, firewall rule validation, or zone/conduit topology verification.Network security tools (firewalls, unidirectional gateways, network monitoring platforms) address FR 5 compliance.Adjacent BTP value: Detection of hardcoded IP addresses and network credentials (secret/credentials) that could undermine intended network segmentation controls.
Scope: Security event detection, audit log generation, intrusion detection, incident response.BTP Coverage: Partial — enables TRE but does not provide operational monitoring.BTP generates the vulnerability intelligence that feeds timely response workflows:Direct contribution:
  • VEX documents with under_investigation and affected status formalize the identification phase of incident response for known vulnerability classes
  • CISA KEV integration flags findings requiring mandatory 14-day remediation per CISA BOD 22-01
  • Reachability analysis contextualizes urgency: Entrypoint reachability findings require immediate response; undetermined reachability enables risk-based prioritization
Gap: Audit log generation, SIEM integration, real-time intrusion detection, and incident response orchestration are operational controls outside BTP’s scope. SIEM/SOC platforms address FR 6 for operational environments.
Scope: DoS resilience, redundancy, resource usage monitoring, backup and recovery.BTP Coverage: Partial.In OT environments, patching is operationally disruptive — downtime in production systems has direct physical and financial consequences. Unnecessary patching of vulnerabilities that cannot actually be reached is a significant availability risk. BTP’s Reachability Analysis reduces this risk:
  • Reduces unnecessary patching downtime: By classifying vulnerabilities as Direct, Exported, Referenced, or Undetermined reachability, BTP allows operators to defer patching of unreachable code without compromising the system’s security posture.
  • DoS-relevant vulnerability isolation: CVSS Availability Impact filtering (CVSS Vector Filtering) isolates findings that directly threaten availability, such as those causing resource exhaustion or service disruption.
  • Vulnerability classes threatening availability: Missing mitigations (CFI, stack canaries) enable memory corruption attacks weaponizable for DoS; specific CVE classes are flagged with CVSS Impact scores indicating availability impact.
Gap: Operational availability controls — redundant architectures, failover mechanisms, backup/restore procedures, and uptime monitoring — are outside BTP’s analytical scope. Infrastructure and HA platforms address those requirements.

IEC 62443-2-4: Service Provider Requirements

IEC 62443-2-4 defines the security program capabilities that system integrators and service providers must offer when delivering integration and maintenance activities to IACS asset owners. It requires service providers to independently verify that the components they integrate are free from malicious code and continuously monitored for new vulnerabilities — without necessarily having access to vendor source code. Service providers can fulfill these obligations with BTP’s black-box binary analysis:
The core value for 62443-2-4 is the shift from “trust the vendor” to “verify the binary.” Most compliance tooling for service providers relies on vendor-provided SBOMs and self-attestation. BTP converts the opaque binary into an auditable artifact. This enables independent verification that third-party software meets the asset owner’s Target Security Level (SL-T), regardless of vendor claims.

IEC 62443-3-3: System Security Requirements

IEC 62443-3-3 defines 110 system-level Security Requirements (SRs) across the 7 Foundational Requirements at Security Levels 1–4. BTP maps directly to the SRs where binary analysis provides concrete verification evidence, particularly at SL-3 and SL-4 where defense against intentional attacks is required. SL-3 and SL-4 relevance: At SL-3 (protection against sophisticated attacks with OT-specific knowledge) and SL-4 (protection against state-level APT attacks), SR 3.2 requires going beyond signature-based malware detection. BTP’s semantic analysis — which identifies behavioral patterns, code structure anomalies, and known implant families — meets the depth required at these security levels. Simple AV scanning does not satisfy SL-3/SL-4 for SR 3.2.

IEC 62443-2-3: Patch Management

IEC 62443-2-3 is a Technical Report defining patch management requirements for IACS asset owners and the obligations of product suppliers to support patching activities. BTP supports both product suppliers (demonstrating patch delivery) and asset owners (assessing patch applicability and urgency):

For Product Suppliers

For Asset Owners


Generating ISA/IEC 62443 Compliance Artifacts

BTP generates all standard-required compliance artifacts via API or UI export.
1

Upload and scan the firmware binary

Upload the firmware image and wait for scan completion. For CI/CD integration, use the CI/CD Integration pipeline.
2

Generate SBOM (62443-4-1 Practice 2 / 62443-2-3)

3

Generate CBOM (62443-4-2 FR 4 / DC)

4

Generate VEX (62443-4-1 Practice 6–7 / 62443-2-3)

5

Generate PQC Report (62443-4-2 FR 4 — long-lifecycle components)

6

Export Findings Report (62443-4-1 Practice 5 / 62443-4-2 all FRs)

For a single-command script that downloads all artifacts, see Compliance Artifacts — Automation Script.

Known Limitations

The following ISA/IEC 62443 requirements are outside BTP’s scope as a binary analysis platform:
Do not use BTP as the sole evidence source for these requirement areas. Complementary controls are required to achieve a complete compliance posture.

SBOM Export

Generate binary-derived Software Bills of Materials in CycloneDX and SPDX formats.

CBOM Export

Inventory all cryptographic algorithms, keys, and certificates in analyzed binaries.

VEX Export

Communicate vulnerability exploitability status to downstream integrators and asset owners.

PQC Compliance Report

Assess post-quantum cryptography readiness for long-lifecycle IACS components.

Reachability Analysis

Understand exploitability context for vulnerability prioritization.

Finding Classes

Complete reference of all 238 finding classes and their security significance.