You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

March 29, 2024

Thailand Details CII Organizations’ Cybersecurity Duties

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Cybersecurity Regulating Committee (CRC) released a notification under the Cybersecurity Act on February 22, 2024, setting key operational obligations for critical information infrastructure (CII) organizations. The notification takes effect on June 20, 2024.

CII organizations are state or private entities that carry out services related to national security, public services, banking and finance, information technology and telecommunications, transportation and logistics, energy and public utilities, or public health. CII organizations will be identified by the National Cyber Security Committee (NCSC) and notified of their status.

The key obligations of CII organizations are laid out below.

Reporting to the National Cyber Security Agency (NCSA)

CII organizations must provide the following to the NCSA:

  • A list of executive and operational staff, along with emergency contacts who can be reached within 60 minutes in the event of a cyber threat. The NCSA must be notified of any updates to this list within 15 days following any changes.
  • A list of internal departments or individuals who are the responsible persons, owners, and holders of the computer systems, along with emergency contacts who can be reached within 60 minutes in the event of a cyber threat. The NCSA must be notified of any updates to this list at least 7 days prior to any changes (or within 15 days after the change if there is a necessary reason).

Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures

As specified in the National Cyber Security Committee (NCSC) guidelines, CII organizations must prepare the following internal documents by June 20, 2025:

  • Cybersecurity practice guidelines, consisting of an inspection plan, risk assessment, and incident response plan.
  • Cybersecurity standards framework, consisting of measures for risk identification, risk prevention, threat detection and monitoring, incident responses, and resilience and recovery.

CII organizations must also prepare the following:

  • Mechanisms, procedures, and steps for monitoring and detecting cyber threats or incidents related to critical infrastructure cybersecurity, as well as cybersecurity resolution systems as designated by the NCSC or CRC. These must comply with the standards set by the regulators (the specific regulator depends on the characteristics of the organization) and the NCSC guidelines.
  • Internal methods and procedures for cybersecurity risk management, which must identify risk appetite, conform with the cybersecurity management policy announced by the NCSC, and be approved by the regulator before finally being submitted to the NCSA.

Ongoing Compliance

CII organizations are also responsible for the following ongoing requirements:

  • Submit an annual report covering the number and types of cyber threats that arose during the relevant reporting period, as well as the causes and effects of the cyber threats, problems and obstacles in operation, and policy recommendations. The first report must be submitted by January 31, 2025, and by January 31 of each year thereafter.
  • Review the cybersecurity guidelines and standards framework described above at least once a year, or whenever there is a significant change to cybersecurity operations.
  • Review the methods and procedures for cybersecurity risk management described above at least once a year, or when there is a significant change to cybersecurity operations.
  • Review the cybersecurity mechanisms described above at least once a year.
  • Conduct a cybersecurity risk assessment in accordance with the NCSC guidelines. The report must be submitted to the NCSA within 30 days of completion, but no later than January 31 of the following year. The report must also be submitted to the regulator. This report is distinct from the CII organization’s own risk assessment report.
  • Have a third-party or internal cybersecurity auditor conduct a cybersecurity audit at least once a year. The auditor’s report must be submitted to the NCSA within 30 days of completion, but no later than January 31 of the following year. A summary of the report must also be delivered to the regulator.
  • Organize a business continuity plan training program at least once a year to evaluate the plan’s effectiveness in addressing cyber threats.

Cybersecurity Incident Response

If a cybersecurity incident occurs, CII organizations must:

  • Run detection and analysis procedures as outlined in the NCSC guidelines.
  • Notify and submit a report to both the NCSA and the regulator within 24 hours.
  • Cooperate with the collection and investigation of evidence relating to the cybersecurity incident by officers under the Cybersecurity Act.

The penalty for a CII organization not reporting a cybersecurity incident that has a significant impact on their systems to the NCSA and the regulator without reasonable cause is a fine of up to THB 200,000 (approx. USD 5,500).

Other Obligations

In addition, CII organizations must do the following:

  • Mitigate cybersecurity risks and implement plans to deal with cybersecurity incidents.
  • Collaborate with the NCSC, CRC, and NCSA to organize cyber threat response training, including supplying necessary information for the planning and execution of the training.
  • Participate in cyber threat readiness tests conducted by the NCSA to ensure preparedness for handling cybersecurity incidents.
  • Prepare a business continuity plan in accordance with the prescribed criteria to ensure the ongoing provision of critical services.
  • If evidence suggests a cybersecurity incident may have occurred, evaluate the computer systems, data, and surrounding circumstances in order to determine whether the incident occurred and its impact on the organization’s information system.
  • State CII organizations must establish a computer emergency response team (CERT) for CII organizations and CII services in their sector, or promptly notify the NCSC of the reason for its inability to do so.
  • Cooperate with the relevant sectoral CERT as well as the Thailand Computer Emergency Response Team (ThaiCERT) on cybersecurity incident responsiveness, dealing with the effects of cyber threats, and other cybersecurity issues.
  • Comply with any orders or notifications issued by the NCSC or the CRC.

The NCSA will review the obligations under this notification at least every two years, or when there is a significant change regarding cybersecurity.

For more information on compliance with Thailand’s cybersecurity regulations, please contact Nopparat Lalitkomon at [email protected], Napassorn Lertussavavivat at [email protected], or Nitcharat Siraprapasiri at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More