Templates for IEC 62443-4-1 compared: what Exida, TÜV SÜD and the free sample process cover, where gaps remain, and what the CRA requires.
Contents
Exida — solid process basis without vulnerability management
Exida offers template packages for operators and for OEMs. For manufacturers the OEM package is relevant.
It consists of editable Word documents and covers the core development processes: configuration management, requirements specification, security design, threat modeling, test planning and the assessment of the process itself. It also includes a coding standard and a user manual.
Two areas are missing. For vulnerability handling the package provides neither processes nor templates, and supplier management is only sketched. Both topics are the first to be noticed in audits and in CRA evidence. Anyone who buys the package will have to close these gaps with their own work or external support.
For companies that already develop securely and only want to structure their processes, it is a usable starting point. Beginners lack filled examples that show what a finished artifact looks like.
Mittelstand‑Digital Zentrum Hannover — free overview, no templates
The Mittelstand‑Digital Zentrum Hannover provides a Musterprozess zur Unterstützung einer IT-sicheren Produktentwicklung (https://digitalzentrum-hannover.de/aktuelles/musterprozess-it-sicherer-produktentwicklung). It traces the product development lifecycle according to IEC 62443-4-1, is freely available online and can be downloaded as a PDF.
For getting started this is the cheapest option on the market. The sample process names the relevant topics and shows their sequence in the lifecycle. A development manager encountering IEC 62443-4-1 for the first time will understand within an hour what it is about.
It is not sufficient for implementation. The sample process remains at the conceptual level: there are no document templates and no completed examples. Translating it into company-specific processes and documents is entirely up to the reader.
TÜV SÜD — auditing reputation with a built‑in advisory limit
TÜV SÜD offers a template package for implementing IEC 62443-4-1, which can be supplemented with workshops.
The name helps. A package from a recognized testing and certification organization is easier to push through internally, and the prescribed processes are aligned with the standard’s requirements.
The catch is the same role. As an independent certification body TÜV SÜD may not provide comprehensive implementation advice because that could compromise its independence in a later audit. For the same reason the accompanying workshops are limited in scope. You buy templates from an organization that can only help you to a limited extent when filling them out.
As with Exida, filled examples are missing. The structure is there; you must develop the contents yourself.
The three offerings compared
Our template package
Our templates for the secure development process according to IEC 62443-4-1 are today part of the CRA template package, as the module “Development process and SDLC”. Included are process descriptions with roles, inputs, outputs and evidence, plus templates for security requirements, secure design, verification and testing as well as for risk assessment and threat modeling. The module can be purchased separately, without the full package.
Unlike in 2024 we no longer sell the 62443-4-1 templates as a separate maturity model. The reason is explained in the next section.
Two clarifications belong here: the package does not replace an existing quality management system, and the standards themselves must be purchased. The templates assume a basic understanding of IEC 62443-4-1.
Why 62443-4-1 templates must be CRA compatible today
Two dates matter for manufacturers. From 11 September 2026 reporting obligations apply for actively exploited vulnerabilities and serious security incidents. From 11 December 2027 the Cyber Resilience Act applies in full, including evidence and conformity assessment.
The three offerings described above are tailored to IEC 62443-4-1. None of their content descriptions includes a mapping of artifacts to CRA requirements.
That does not make them worthless, but it pushes work further down the line. A process manual that an auditor accepts under IEC 62443-4-1 does not yet answer the question a conformity assessment body will ask: which document demonstrates which CRA requirement. Retrofitting that mapping is more expensive than carrying it from the start. Anyone buying templates now should therefore check whether they can be extended to CRA evidence. Which documents are needed for that is listed on the page CRA templates for manufacturers.
How to tell if a template package is useful
Four questions separate templates that save work from templates that create work:
- Are there filled examples? An empty form with headings costs almost as much time as a blank sheet. A worked-through example artifact shows detail depth and language level.
- Are roles, inputs, outputs and interfaces named? Most friction occurs between development, QA, product management and purchasing, not within a single process step.
- Is there a mapping from requirement to evidence? Without it you only notice during the audit which document is missing.
- Are the documents editable and adaptable to your process landscape? You can read a PDF, but you cannot adopt it into your management system.
A package that fulfils all four points does not replace your own implementation. It shortens the path from the standard requirement to reliable documentation, and that is exactly what templates are for.
