Skip to content
CROSSWALK

File Integrity and Private Key Controls

Maps to

IEC 81001-5-1: §5.8.3

Requirement text

The manufacturer shall establish an activity (or activities) to provide an integrity verification mechanism for all scripts, executables and other security-relevant files used with a health software (5.8.3). Common methods include cryptographic hashes and digital signatures. The manufacturer shall have procedural and technical controls in place to protect private keys used for code signing from unauthorized access or modification (5.8.4).

What changed

IEC 81001-5-1:2021 is the first standalone cybersecurity standard purpose-built for health software and medical device software. Published in December 2021, it was adapted from IEC 62443-4-1 (industrial control systems security) to address the unique safety and regulatory context of medical devices — adding 64 health-specific requirements that account for patient safety, clinical workflows, and the manufacturer-HDO relationship.

The standard mirrors IEC 62304's lifecycle structure but adds security-specific activities at every phase — planning, development, testing, release, and maintenance. It requires security risk management to be integrated with ISO 14971 safety risk management, not treated as a separate IT concern. FDA formally recognized it as Consensus Standard #13-112 in December 2022 and references it as providing a framework for the Secure Product Development Framework (SPDF) required by Section 524B.

EU MDR harmonization was originally targeted for May 2024 but postponed to May 2028. Despite this delay, Notified Bodies and Competent Authorities universally recognize it as "state of the art" for health software cybersecurity under MDR GSPR Annex I, Section 17.2. Missing or inadequate cybersecurity documentation is already a top cause of Notified Body major non-conformities for SaMD. A December 2025 Interpretation Sheet (ISH1:2025) clarified software item classification into maintained, supported, and required software categories, affecting risk transfer and post-market obligations.

Atomic constraints

  • An integrity verification mechanism must be established for all scripts, executables, and security-relevant files.
  • The integrity mechanism must allow product users to verify that files have not been altered.
  • Procedural controls must be in place to protect code signing private keys from unauthorized access.
  • Technical controls must be in place to protect code signing private keys from unauthorized modification.

Common gaps

Software release integrity not verifiable by operators

major

Released software packages are not digitally signed, or signing keys are not properly managed. Operators cannot verify that installed software has not been tampered with. Plans must address secure boot, signed firmware, and rollback capabilities.

Evidence signals

  • FILE_EXISTS

    Code.*Signing|Key.*Management|Integrity.*Verification|Digital.*Signature|Release.*Integrity

  • CONTENT_MATCH

    Does this document describe an integrity verification mechanism (cryptographic hashes or digital signatures) for release files, and controls protecting code signing private keys from unauthorized access or modification?

Audit defense

The Release Integrity and Code Signing procedures for [your product] (Doc ID: [your document ID]) establish cryptographic integrity verification for all release artifacts and document procedural and technical controls protecting code signing private keys from unauthorized access.

Review your documents against this clause →

Further reading

Free compliance review. Pay only for the detailed report.

No credit card. No sales call. No consultants required.

Start My Free Review →

Read-only access. Your documents stay in your Drive.