Search every question across sub-FAQs

The common failure pattern is using a generic IoT security claim without proving the PSTI product scope, exact responsible role, customer-facing support information, and statement-of-compliance record.

Teams should treat Support Periods under the UK PSTI Act as a source-linked operating decision: confirm whether the product is a relevant connectable product, identify the manufacturer, importer or distributor duties that apply, and publish the minimum security update period information required by the regime, including the minimum length of time updates will be provided and an end date.

The safest first step is to classify the product and supply-chain role before deciding whether the duty belongs to the manufacturer, importer, distributor, or all of them.

Useful evidence is not just a product-security policy. Keep the source, product facts, password and vulnerability-disclosure proof, support-period statement, supply-chain role mapping, and statement-of-compliance approval together.

The common failure pattern is using a generic IoT security claim without proving the PSTI product scope, exact responsible role, customer-facing support information, and statement-of-compliance record.

Teams should treat Update Transparency under UK PSTI Act as a source-linked operating decision: confirm whether the product is a relevant connectable product and which manufacturer, importer, distributor, statement-of-compliance, vulnerability-disclosure, password, support-period, or OPSS enforcement duty is triggered, assign the team that can change the process, and keep evidence showing the action and review trigger.

The safest first step is to classify the product and supply-chain role before deciding whether the duty belongs to the manufacturer, importer, distributor, or all of them.

Useful evidence is not just a product-security policy. Keep the source, product facts, password and vulnerability-disclosure proof, support-period statement, supply-chain role mapping, and statement-of-compliance approval together.

The common failure pattern is using a generic IoT security claim without proving the PSTI product scope, exact responsible role, customer-facing support information, and statement-of-compliance record.

Teams should treat vulnerability disclosure under the UK PSTI Act as a source-linked operating decision: confirm whether the product is a relevant connectable product and which manufacturer, importer, distributor, statement-of-compliance, vulnerability-disclosure, password, support-period, or OPSS enforcement duty is relevant, assign the team that can change the process, and keep evidence showing the action and review trigger.

The safest first step is to classify the product and supply-chain role before deciding whether the duty belongs to the manufacturer, importer, distributor, or all of them.

Useful evidence is not just a product-security policy. Keep the source, product facts, password and vulnerability-disclosure proof, support-period statement, supply-chain role mapping, and statement-of-compliance approval together.

The common failure pattern is using a generic IoT security claim without proving the PSTI product scope, exact responsible role, customer-facing support information, and statement-of-compliance record.