FAQEUCyber Resilience Act

EU Cyber Resilience Act FAQ Known Exploitable Vulnerabilities at Launch

The Cyber Resilience Act does not require a product to be vulnerability-free before launch. It does require the manufacturer to place the product on the market, where applicable and based on the cybersecurity risk assessment, without known exploitable vulnerabilities.

This FAQ helps turn CVEs, component findings, late-stage test results, and exploit reports into official source CRA release-gate decisions.

Author
Sorena AI
Published
Mar 10, 2026
Updated
Oct 15, 2026
Overview

This FAQ explains how to assess a at the CRA launch gate and separates that decision from post-placement vulnerability handling and Article 14 reporting. The Annex I launch requirement applies from 11 December 2027 to products placed on the Union market from that date, while Article 14 reporting starts earlier, on 11 September 2026. It is written for product security, engineering, release, legal, and compliance teams deciding whether a product with digital elements can be placed on the EU market.

Search this module

Find a question or answer quickly

14 of 14 questions
Question 1

Does the Cyber Resilience Act require a product to be free from all vulnerabilities before launch?

No. The CRA launch requirement is narrower than that.

Annex I Part I point (2)(a) says that, on the basis of the cybersecurity risk assessment and where applicable, products with digital elements must be made available on the market without known exploitable vulnerabilities. This launch requirement applies from 11 December 2027 to products placed on the Union market from that date. The Commission FAQ confirms that the CRA does not require manufacturers to ensure that a product is free from all vulnerabilities.

Question 2

What is an exploitable vulnerability under the Cyber Resilience Act?

The CRA defines a vulnerability as a weakness, susceptibility, or flaw of a product with digital elements that can be exploited by a cyber threat. It defines an exploitable vulnerability as one that has the potential to be effectively used by an adversary under practical operational conditions.

The practical question is therefore not only whether a weakness exists, but whether it can be used against this product in its intended and reasonably foreseeable operating conditions.

Question 3

What makes a vulnerability known for the CRA launch-time rule?

The CRA text does not separately define when an exploitable vulnerability becomes known. The Commission's July 2026 guidance gives the most specific public interpretation in the cited source material.

Under that adopted Commission guidance, an exploitable vulnerability should be regarded as known when it is listed in relevant public vulnerability databases, including the European vulnerability database under NIS2 or prominent databases such as the CVE List. It may also be known through coordinated disclosure, internal testing and analysis, or prominent reporting in reliable cybersecurity or general media.

Question 4

Does every CVE or component vulnerability automatically block CRA placement on the market?

No. A public CVE, advisory, or component finding is a triage trigger, not an automatic launch ban for every product variant.

The manufacturer still has to verify whether the reported vulnerability is real, whether the affected code or function is present and reachable in its product, whether the vulnerable component is invoked or loaded in use, what access is required, whether compensating controls change exploitability, and whether the product's actual operational environment makes exploitation practical.

Question 5

How should a manufacturer decide whether a late-stage vulnerability blocks launch under the CRA?

Treat a late-stage potentially exploitable vulnerability as a release gate.

If the finding is known and exploitable for this product, determine whether the product can still be securely placed on the market in compliance with Annex I. The Commission's July 2026 guidance requires a risk-based decision that considers severity, practical exploitability, potential impact and risks once the product is in use. It also permits consideration of the risks of postponing a release, for example when that release fixes other exploitable vulnerabilities or is necessary for critical systems. Document why the decision meets the CRA; a promise to patch later alone does not establish conformity.

Recommended next step

Review CRA known-exploitable-vulnerability launch gates

Research Copilot helps product security, release, legal, and compliance teams document whether a CRA vulnerability finding blocks placement on the market, requires support-period remediation, or triggers Article 14 reporting.

Question 6

Can a manufacturer rely on a plan to patch later if the vulnerability is already known and exploitable before placement on the market?

No, not as a substitute for the launch-time Annex I requirement.

A post-launch patch process does not by itself demonstrate that the product meets Annex I at placement. The July 2026 guidance nevertheless requires a risk-based launch decision, including consideration of risks from delaying a release. Where the product cannot be securely placed in conformity with the CRA, fix or otherwise bring it into conformity before supply. Support-period vulnerability handling continues after placement.

Question 7

How does the CRA treat vulnerabilities found after placement on the market but before the final user receives the product?

The Commission FAQ says the launch-time obligation applies at placement on the market. If a newly discovered vulnerability appears after that point, the manufacturer is not expected to fix it before the product reaches the final user solely because of Annex I Part I point (2)(a).

That does not end the analysis. The manufacturer still has to handle vulnerabilities during the support period, including addressing and remediating vulnerabilities without delay in relation to the risks posed. Depending on the risk, that may mean a security update, workaround advisory, configuration guidance, or another remedy.

Question 8

Does the CRA launch rule cover vulnerabilities in integrated third-party components?

Yes. The launch decision is about the product with digital elements as placed on the market, including integrated components.

Article 13 requires due diligence when integrating third-party components so they do not compromise the cybersecurity of the product. Recital 34 and the Commission FAQ also explain that vulnerability-handling obligations apply to the product in its entirety, including integrated components. A component CVE therefore needs product-specific applicability and exploitability triage, not automatic dismissal because the flaw is upstream.

Question 9

How do secure-by-default settings affect a known-exploitable-vulnerability launch decision?

Secure-by-default is a separate Annex I requirement, but it often affects exploitability and launch risk.

If a vulnerable service, interface, algorithm, default credential, or update setting is exposed by default, the release gate should evaluate both requirements together: whether the product is being made available without known exploitable vulnerabilities, and whether the default configuration is secure for the product's intended purpose and reasonably foreseeable use. If a configuration change is the mitigation, the evidence should show that the secure state is the market-delivered default, not only an optional hardening guide.

Question 10

Does the CRA launch-time rule require evidence that the vulnerability is actively exploited in the wild?

No. and actively exploited vulnerability are different CRA concepts.

A launch decision under Annex I Part I point (2)(a) asks whether the vulnerability is known and exploitable under practical operational conditions at placement on the market. Article 14 reporting asks whether the manufacturer becomes aware of an actively exploited vulnerability, which Article 3(42) defines by reliable evidence of malicious exploitation in a system without permission.

Question 11

When can a launch vulnerability also trigger CRA Article 14 reporting?

Article 14 is triggered when the manufacturer becomes aware of an actively exploited vulnerability contained in the product with digital elements, not merely because a vulnerability is known, severe, or unpatched. The July 2026 guidance clarifies that active exploitation of a component elsewhere does not trigger mandatory reporting when that vulnerability is not exploited in the finished product. Record the product-specific finding and consider voluntary notification where appropriate.

If the launch triage finds reliable evidence that a malicious actor has exploited the vulnerability in a system without permission, Article 14 reporting may apply. The CRA then requires an early warning within 24 hours of awareness, a vulnerability notification within 72 hours of awareness, and a final report no later than 14 days after a corrective or mitigating measure is available.

Question 12

What evidence should a CRA launch gate keep for known exploitable vulnerability decisions?

Keep evidence that connects the vulnerability finding to the specific CRA launch conclusion.

Useful records include the source of the finding, affected product identifiers and versions, SBOM or component mapping, vulnerable code-path analysis, operational-environment assumptions, access prerequisites, compensating controls, severity and impact analysis, fix or mitigation status, secure-by-default configuration evidence, test results, the risk-assessment update, the release approval or block decision, and any Article 14 or voluntary-reporting assessment. The record should be usable by someone checking why the product was or was not placed on the market.

Question 13

Can unfinished alpha, beta, or release-candidate software be made available for testing if it is not yet CRA compliant?

Yes, but only within the CRA testing exception.

Article 4(3) allows unfinished software to be made available for the limited time required for testing if it has a visible sign clearly stating that it does not comply with the CRA and will not be available on the market for purposes other than testing. Recital 37 and the Commission FAQ add that manufacturers should still release it only following a risk assessment, comply with product security requirements to the extent possible, and implement vulnerability handling to the extent possible.

Question 14

For products manufactured in series, can later units be placed on the market without already available relevant patches?

No. CRA compliance is not only a product-type abstraction.

Recital 38 says the essential cybersecurity requirements apply to each individual product with digital elements when it is placed on the market, whether manufactured individually or in series. It gives the example that each individual product should have received all security patches or updates available to address relevant security issues when it is placed on the market.

Primary sources

References and citations

data.europa.eu13 citations
Referenced sections
  • Official Cyber Resilience Act legal text supporting this FAQ and its article-level compliance conclusions.
  • Annex I Part I point (2)(a) sets the launch-time requirement; Article 13(1)-(4) ties it to design, development, production, risk assessment, and technical documentation; Article 71(2) sets the 11 December 2027 main application date.
  • Article 3(40) defines vulnerability and Article 3(41) defines exploitable vulnerability.
Show 10 more
  • Article 13(1)-(4) requires manufacturers to design, develop, produce, document, and assess products against the Annex I requirements before placing them on the market.
  • Annex I Part I point (2)(a) applies at launch, while Annex I Part II point (2) requires vulnerability remediation during the vulnerability-handling lifecycle.
  • Annex I Part II point (2) requires risk-based remediation without delay during vulnerability handling.
  • Article 13(5)-(8) and recital 34 require component due diligence and product-wide vulnerability handling.
  • Annex I Part I point (2)(b) requires secure-by-default configuration, and point (2)(c) covers security updates and automatic update settings where applicable.
  • Article 3(41) defines exploitable vulnerability; Article 3(42) defines actively exploited vulnerability; Article 14 sets reporting obligations for actively exploited vulnerabilities.
  • Article 14(1)-(2) sets the mandatory reporting sequence for actively exploited vulnerabilities and the 24-hour, 72-hour, and final-report timing.
  • Article 13(3)-(4) requires documented and updated risk assessment; Article 13(7) requires systematic documentation of cybersecurity aspects, including known vulnerabilities and third-party information; Annex VII requires risk assessment and test-report documentation.
  • Article 4(3)-(4) and recital 37 set the unfinished-software testing exception and its limits.
  • Recital 38 explains how essential cybersecurity requirements apply to individual products in series and specifically mentions available patches and updates at placement on the market.
"without known exploitable vulnerabilities"
More quoted passages
"practical operational conditions"
"Before placing a product"
"address and remediate vulnerabilities without delay"
"in relation to the risks posed"
"including to all integrated components"
"secure by default configuration"
"reliable evidence"
"within 24 hours"
"systematically document"
"only for the time necessary to test"
"each individual product"
ec.europa.eu10 citations
Referenced sections
  • Section 4.2.2 explains that the CRA does not impose a vulnerability-free product standard.
  • Section 4.2.2 says exploitability must be assessed case by case against operational and technical conditions.
  • Section 4.2.2 lists operational and technical factors for case-by-case exploitability assessment, including code invocation, access required, and compensating controls.
Show 7 more
  • Sections 4.2.3 and 4.3.1 distinguish the moment-of-placement obligation from support-period remediation obligations.
  • Section 4.2.3 addresses vulnerabilities discovered after placement on the market but before the product reaches the final user.
  • Sections 4.3.6 and 4.4.2 explain component vulnerability handling and component due-diligence actions such as vulnerability database checks, security testing, SCA, SBOM review, and support-period checks.
  • Section 4.2.4 explains that secure-by-default depends on intended purpose, reasonably foreseeable use, and the manufacturer's cybersecurity risk assessment.
  • Section 5.2 explains that zero-day vulnerabilities are reportable under Article 14 only when there is reliable evidence of malicious exploitation.
  • Sections 4.1.8 and 4.2.2 support keeping technical documentation, risk-assessment updates, and case-specific exploitability factors for vulnerability conclusions.
  • Section 1.6 explains the unfinished-software exception and confirms that risk assessment and vulnerability handling still matter to the extent possible.
"does not require manufacturers to ensure that a product is free from all vulnerabilities"
More quoted passages
"case-by-case basis"
"whether compensating controls are already in place"
"applies at the moment of placement"
"not expected to fix newly discovered vulnerabilities"
"vulnerabilities affecting their products"
"intended purpose and reasonably foreseeable use"
"no evidence of previous malicious exploitation"
"including vulnerabilities of which they become aware"
"released only following a risk assessment"
ec.europa.eu4 citations
Referenced sections
  • Commission guidance, section 9.2.2, points 230–235. Supports the interpretation and qualifications explained in this answer.
  • Commission guidance, section 9.2.2, point 235. Supports the interpretation and qualifications explained in this answer.
  • Commission guidance, section 9.2.2, points 236–237. Supports the interpretation and qualifications explained in this answer.
Show 1 more
  • Section 9.1, point 218, distinguishes active exploitation in the finished product from exploitation only in a component elsewhere; section 9.2.2 explains launch-time exploitability.
"listed in relevant publicly accessible vulnerability databases"
More quoted passages
"does not, in itself"
"shortly before it enters the distribution chain"
"has not been exploited in its product with digital elements"
digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Historical announcement of the consultation draft. The substantive answer uses the adopted July 2026 guidance cited alongside this record.
"published for feedback draft guidance"

CRA Blue Guide Concepts FAQ | Placing on the Market, Making Available, Distance Sales

CRA FAQ explaining Blue Guide market-access concepts for products with digital elements: placing on the market, making available, imports, CE marking, operator roles, online sales, stock, and testing exceptions.

CRA CE Marking FAQ | Conformity Assessment, EU Declaration, Evidence

Practical CRA CE marking answers for products with digital elements: conformity assessment, EU declaration, technical documentation, standards, software placement, and launch evidence.

CRA Component Due Diligence FAQ | Third-Party Software, FOSS, SBOMs

Cyber Resilience Act FAQ on manufacturer due diligence for integrated components, third-party software, FOSS dependencies, SBOMs, vulnerability handling, and evidence records.

CRA Conformity Assessment Routes FAQ | Module A, Module B+C, Module H, Important and Critical Products

Cyber Resilience Act FAQ on when manufacturers can use module A, when module B+C or module H is required, and how important and critical products affect the route.

CRA Cybersecurity Risk Assessment FAQ | Article 13, Annex I, Updates

CRA FAQ on Article 13 cybersecurity risk assessments, Annex I applicability, intended purpose, foreseeable use, technical documentation, and update evidence.

CRA Declaration of Conformity FAQ | Annex V, Simplified Declaration, CE Marking

FAQ on the Cyber Resilience Act EU Declaration of Conformity: Annex V contents, simplified Annex VI wording, CE marking link, technical documentation, retention, updates, and operator duties.

Show all related guides (55)

CRA Economic Operators FAQ | Manufacturers, Importers, Distributors, Authorised Representatives

CRA FAQ on economic-operator roles: manufacturers, importers, distributors, authorised representatives, substantial modification, traceability, and evidence controls.

CRA Essential Cybersecurity Requirements FAQ | Annex I Part I and Part II

CRA FAQ on Annex I product cybersecurity requirements, vulnerability handling, secure-by-default design, risk assessment, documentation, lifecycle duties, and user information.

CRA Hardware and Software Boundaries FAQ | Product Scope, Components, RDPS

FAQ on Cyber Resilience Act hardware and software boundaries: combined products, standalone software, source code, components, remote data processing, SaaS and market-placement changes.

CRA Harmonised Standards FAQ | Presumption of Conformity, Common Specifications

Cyber Resilience Act FAQ on how harmonised standards, common specifications, certification schemes, and OJ publication affect CRA conformity evidence.

CRA Important and Critical Products FAQ | Annex III, Annex IV, Conformity Assessment

FAQ on CRA important and critical products, Annex III and Annex IV classification, core functionality, and conformity assessment consequences.

CRA Integrated Components and Dependencies FAQ | Third-Party Software and SBOM Evidence

Cyber Resilience Act FAQ on integrated components, third-party software, remote data processing, SBOM-style evidence, upstream fixes, FOSS dependencies, and manufacturer responsibility.

CRA Interplay With EU Product Laws FAQ | RED, Machinery, Data Act

Official source CRA FAQ on overlap with the Radio Equipment Directive, Machinery Regulation, GPSR, Data Act, exclusions, declarations, documentation, and existing certificates.

CRA Legacy Products FAQ | Pre-11 December 2027 Products

Cyber Resilience Act FAQ on products placed on the market before 11 December 2027, Article 14 reporting, substantial modification, distributor stock, spare parts, and records.

CRA Manufacturer Obligations FAQ | Article 13, Annex I, CE Marking

FAQ for Cyber Resilience Act manufacturers covering Article 13 duties, risk assessment, Annex I, vulnerability handling, support periods, documentation, conformity assessment, reporting, CE marking, and evidence controls.

CRA Market Surveillance and Enforcement FAQ | Authorities, Corrective Action, Safeguards

Cyber Resilience Act FAQ on market-surveillance authorities, investigations, corrective action, withdrawal, recall, safeguards, sweeps, documentation access, and penalties.

CRA Module B+C FAQ | EU-Type Examination, Conformity to Type, Notified Bodies

CRA Module B+C FAQ explaining EU-type examination, conformity to type, notified-body evidence, production control, CE marking, declarations, and certificate changes.

CRA Module H FAQ | Full Quality Assurance, Notified Body Surveillance, CE Marking

CRA Module H FAQ explaining the full-quality-assurance route, notified-body assessment, quality-system scope, technical documentation, CE marking, declarations, and records.

CRA Notified Bodies FAQ | Scope, Modules B+C and H, Certificates

Practical CRA FAQ on when notified bodies are needed, how CRA bodies are designated, what their notified scope means, and how Module B+C and Module H assessments work.

CRA Open-Source Software FAQ | FOSS Scope, Stewards, Manufacturers

Cyber Resilience Act FAQ for free and open-source software: commercial activity, steward duties, manufacturer due diligence, vulnerability handling, public documentation, and user obligations.

CRA Over-the-Air Updates FAQ

Cyber Resilience Act FAQ on OTA updates, automatic security updates, secure update distribution, support-period evidence, and offline update paths.

CRA penalties and fines FAQ | Article 64 fine caps

FAQ on EU Cyber Resilience Act Article 64 penalties: maximum fine tiers, turnover caps, national enforcement, economic operators, reporting duties, and open-source steward carve-outs.

CRA Product Families FAQ | Variants, Shared Assessments, Family Reuse, Conformity Scope

CRA FAQ on product families, variant grouping, shared technical documentation, conformity evidence, and when cybersecurity-relevant differences need separate assessment.

CRA Products With Digital Elements Scope FAQ

EU Cyber Resilience Act FAQ on products with digital elements, software, firmware, remote data processing, components, exclusions, market placement, and CRA operator boundaries.

CRA Remote Data Processing Solutions FAQ | Product Scope, Cloud and Backend Boundaries

FAQ on how the EU Cyber Resilience Act treats remote data processing solutions, manufacturer-controlled backends, third-party cloud services, SaaS, risk assessment, documentation, and user information.

CRA Reporting Obligations FAQ | Article 14, CSIRTs, ENISA, User Notices

Cyber Resilience Act FAQ on Article 14 reporting for actively exploited vulnerabilities and severe incidents, including timing, CSIRT routing, ENISA access, user notices, and evidence.

CRA Secure-by-Default FAQ | Default Configuration and Annex I Controls

Cyber Resilience Act FAQ on secure-by-default configuration, automatic security updates, attack surface reduction, authentication, data minimisation, user information, and tailor-made products.

CRA Security Updates vs Functionality Updates FAQ

Cyber Resilience Act FAQ on classifying security updates, functionality updates, support-period duties, automatic updates, user notices, and substantial-modification review.

CRA Substantial Modification FAQ | Updates, Repairs, Manufacturer Duties

Cyber Resilience Act FAQ on when software updates, repairs, spare parts, and post-market changes become substantial modifications and trigger CRA manufacturer, evidence, and conformity duties.

CRA Support Period FAQ | Expected Product Lifetime, Security Updates, User Information

Practical CRA FAQ on how manufacturers determine support periods, disclose support end dates, keep security updates available, and document support-period evidence.

CRA Tailor-Made Products FAQ | Bespoke Products, Market Placement, Evidence

FAQ on when a bespoke product may be treated as tailor-made under the EU Cyber Resilience Act, what the carve-out changes, and what manufacturers still need to document.

CRA Technical Documentation FAQ | Annex VII Evidence and Technical File

CRA FAQ explaining Annex VII technical documentation, risk assessment evidence, conformity assessment files, vulnerability handling records, product families, RDPS, language, and authority access.

CRA Transition Period FAQ | Entry Into Force, Application Dates, Reporting, Legacy Products

CRA FAQ on the transition period covering entry into force, 2026 reporting, 2027 application, legacy products, stock, customs timing, and software versions.

CRA Update Availability and Software Archives FAQ

FAQ on CRA security-update availability, support-period notices, optional public software archives, historical versions, and Article 13(10) software-version limits.

CRA User Information and Transparency FAQ | Annex II Instructions

Practical CRA FAQ on Annex II user instructions, support-period disclosure, vulnerability contacts, update notices, importer and distributor information.

CRA Vulnerability Handling FAQ | Support Periods, Components, Reporting

Practical CRA FAQ on vulnerability handling: SBOMs, remediation, coordinated disclosure, component issues, security updates, support periods, Article 14 reporting, and user notices.

Cyber Resilience Act Module A FAQ | Internal Production Control

FAQ on when CRA Module A internal production control is available, when it is blocked, and what documentation, testing, standards, and evidence it still requires.

EU Cyber Resilience Act Core Functionality FAQ | CRA Product Classification

CRA FAQ on core functionality, product boundaries, remote data processing, integrated components, ancillary functions, and software changes that affect product classification.

EU Cyber Resilience Act Repairs and Spare Parts FAQ

CRA FAQ for repairs, spare parts, legacy products, security updates, substantial modification, and responsibility after product changes.

CRA Applicability Test for Products With Digital Elements

Check whether the EU Cyber Resilience Act applies to a hardware, software, firmware, open-source, or connected product before conformity planning.

CRA Article 14 Reporting Obligations for Vulnerabilities and Incidents

Article 14 guide to CRA reports for actively exploited vulnerabilities and severe product-security incidents, including deadlines, CSIRT routing, users, and evidence.

CRA Conformity Assessment and CE Marking

How to choose a Cyber Resilience Act conformity route, prepare technical documentation, issue the EU declaration of conformity, and affix CE marking.

CRA deadlines and compliance calendar | EU Cyber Resilience Act

Track the Cyber Resilience Act entry into force, staged application dates, Article 14 reporting deadlines, transitional rules, and review dates.

CRA Essential Cybersecurity Requirements in Annex I

A source-grounded guide to the Cyber Resilience Act Annex I requirements for product security, vulnerability handling, secure-by-design controls, documentation, and evidence.

CRA Penalties and Fines: Article 64 Caps and Enforcement Context

Article 64 of the EU Cyber Resilience Act sets administrative fine ceilings for Annex I, manufacturer, reporting, economic-operator, notified-body, and information-request breaches.

CRA Products with Digital Elements Scope | EU Cyber Resilience Act

Apply the EU Cyber Resilience Act scope test for software, hardware, remote data processing, components, open-source software, exclusions, and economic-operator roles.

CRA Requirements | Annex I, Manufacturer Duties and CE Evidence

Map Cyber Resilience Act requirements from Annex I to manufacturer duties, vulnerability handling, user information, technical documentation, declaration of conformity, and CE marking evidence.

CRA SBOM and Vulnerability Management Template

Build a CRA-ready SBOM and vulnerability handling record with component inventory, triage, remediation, disclosure, reporting, update, and technical documentation fields.

CRA vs RED Cybersecurity Delegated Act

Compare the EU Cyber Resilience Act with the RED cybersecurity delegated act for connected and radio equipment, including scope, timing, evidence, and transition treatment.

CRA Vulnerability Handling and Disclosure | Article 14 Reporting and Security Updates

How EU Cyber Resilience Act manufacturers should run vulnerability intake, remediation, coordinated disclosure, Article 14 reporting, secure updates, and evidence records.

EU CRA Compliance Program for Manufacturers and Economic Operators

Build a Cyber Resilience Act compliance program around product scope, Annex I security requirements, conformity assessment, technical documentation, vulnerability reporting, and market surveillance.

EU CRA vs UK PSTI Product Security Regime

Compare EU Cyber Resilience Act and UK PSTI product-security scope, duties, evidence, dates, actors, and enforcement for connected products.

EU Cyber Resilience Act Checklist for Product Security and CE Marking

A CRA checklist for products with digital elements: scope, Annex I security controls, vulnerability handling, Article 14 reporting, technical documentation, conformity assessment, CE marking, and support-period evidence.

EU Cyber Resilience Act FAQ

Direct CRA FAQ answers on scope, economic-operator roles, essential requirements, vulnerability reporting, conformity assessment, CE marking, support periods, and market surveillance.

EU Cyber Resilience Act Technical Documentation and Audit File

Build a CRA technical file around Article 31 and Annex VII: product scope, risk assessment, vulnerability handling, conformity evidence, testing, updates, and retention.