Manufacturing Cybersecurity Compliance: Frameworks and Threat Modeling
The Role of Threat Modeling in Manufacturing Compliance
As manufacturing systems become more connected—from factory floors to cloud-based supply chains—regulators are raising the bar for cybersecurity. Across global standards, manufacturers are expected to identify threats, assess risk to industrial assets, and implement layered defenses that protect critical systems and sensitive data.
Threat modeling plays a key role in meeting these expectations, whether through formal mandates like NIST 800-53 or aligned practices under frameworks such as MLPS 2.0, UAE NIA, and CMMC.
ThreatModeler enables manufacturing organizations to scale their threat modeling efforts across operational technology (OT), IT, and cloud environments. Our platform supports 180+ global frameworks and helps teams automate risk assessments, validate control coverage, and generate audit-ready reports to support compliance across regions and industries.
Below, you’ll find summaries of major manufacturing-focused regulations, highlighting where threat modeling is required or aligned, and how ThreatModeler helps meet those obligations efficiently and at scale.
Geography: Canada
CyberSecure Canada
Description: Voluntary certification program offering baseline cybersecurity controls for small and medium-sized businesses, including manufacturers.
Specifics: Encourages risk assessments, asset identification, and access control planning.
Threat Modeling Alignment: Though it does not explicitly mention threat modeling, it promotes understanding cyber threats and designing mitigations.
As specified in the framework:
“Identify and manage cyber risks by understanding threats and vulnerabilities to digital systems and applying security controls appropriate to the context.”
Geography: India
RBI Cyber Security Framework for Banks
Description: Issued by the Reserve Bank of India, applicable to industrial banks and service platforms, including manufacturing finance.
Specifics: Mandates risk-based controls, incident response, and system-level threat analysis.
Threat Modeling Alignment: While not naming threat modeling directly, it mandates proactive vulnerability assessments and scenario-driven analysis.
As specified in the regulations:
“Banks should formulate a Cyber Crisis Management Plan which should be adequately tested from time to time. The plan should encompass identification, detection, response, recovery and containment procedures with periodic testing and drills.”
Geography: China
MLPS 2.0 – Multi-Level Protection Scheme
Description: National cybersecurity classification and risk management standard across critical infrastructure, including industrial networks.
Specifics: Organizations must classify systems, assess risks, and implement tiered defenses.
Threat Modeling Alignment: Explicit threat modeling is not mentioned, but systemic risk assessment and layered defense design reflect core principles.
As specified in the standard:
“Network operators shall evaluate the security risks of their systems and take appropriate protection measures based on a graded classification to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of critical data and infrastructure.”
Geography: Middle East
SAMA Cybersecurity Framework – Saudi Arabia
Description: Mandated by the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority for regulated entities, including manufacturing financial platforms.
Specifics: Includes risk-based control validation and asset classification.
Threat Modeling Alignment: Supports threat modeling through its requirements for identifying and categorizing risks to information assets.
As specified in the framework:
“Entities shall implement a formal risk management process to identify and assess cyber risks and their potential impact to systems, applications, and services. Mitigation plans must be aligned to identified threats and criticality.”
Geography: United Arab Emirates
UAE NIA – National Information Assurance Standards
Description: Applies to government and industrial organizations operating critical information infrastructure.
Specifics: Outlines mandatory risk assessments and asset-based threat analysis.
Threat Modeling Alignment: Strongly aligned with threat modeling; calls for classification and threat-based defense design.
As specified in the standard:
“Organizations shall conduct comprehensive information risk assessments to identify threats and vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts, and implement appropriate controls in accordance with asset criticality and threat likelihood.”
Geography: United States
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 (2020)
Description: Security and privacy controls for U.S. federal information systems and organizations, applicable to manufacturers handling sensitive federal data.
Specifics: Includes specific requirements for threat modeling during development and system security engineering.
Threat Modeling Alignment: Threat modeling is explicitly required for security architecture and vulnerability analysis.
As specified in the regulations:
“Require the developer of the system, system component, or system service to perform threat modeling and vulnerability analyses during development and the subsequent testing and evaluation of the system, component, or service.” (SA-11(2))
“Examples of system security engineering principles include: … performing threat modeling to identify use cases, threat agents, attack vectors and patterns, design patterns, and compensating controls needed to mitigate risk.” (SA-8)
NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 (2020)
Description: Guidelines for protecting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in nonfederal systems, especially defense and manufacturing contractors.
Specifics: Focuses on 14 control families, including access control, risk assessment, and monitoring.
Threat Modeling Alignment: Though it does not mention threat modeling directly, it requires structured risk assessments and mitigation planning.
As specified in the guidelines:
“Conduct an assessment of risk including the likelihood and magnitude of harm, from the unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of information systems and the information they process, store, or transmit.”
CMMC 2.0 (2021)
Description: The cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification framework is required for U.S. Defense Industrial Base suppliers, including manufacturers.
Specifics: Aligns with NIST 800-171, including expectations for proactive threat defense and continuous improvement.
Threat Modeling Alignment: While the phrase ‘threat modeling’ is not used, the model mandates policies, procedures, and documentation of threat-informed risk reduction.
As specified in the framework:
“Level 2 requires documentation of practices to ensure they are repeatable, including policies, plans, and procedures, and assessments of risks to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).”