DPDP and CyFun: What Multi-Framework Compliance Teams Need to Know
Two Regimes, No Relation To Each Other Except The Team That Owns Both
India's DPDP Act and Belgium's CyFun framework have nothing to do with each other on paper: different continents, different regulators, different subject matter (data privacy versus cybersecurity posture). But for any organisation with both an Indian entity and a Belgian or EU footprint a common shape for SaaS companies, BPOs, and financial-services firms they land on the same compliance team, often in the same year. Treating them as two unrelated projects, run by two different people with two different spreadsheets, is the expensive way to handle it.
DPDP, In Brief
India's Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (notified 14 Nov 2025) roll out in three phases: the Data Protection Board is already active, the Consent Manager regime activates around November 2026, and the core business obligations consent notices, processing restrictions, retention/erasure, breach reporting within 72 hours activate around May 2027. Penalties run up to ₹2.5 billion per breach. 2026 is the active preparation window, not a waiting period.
CyFun, In Brief
CyFun is Belgium's official cybersecurity framework, built by the Centre for Cybersecurity Belgium from NIST CSF 2.0, ISO 27001, and the CIS Controls, and used as the country's recognised path to NIS2 compliance. It has three cumulative levels: Basic (34 controls), Important (133 controls), Essential (218 controls) with Basic self-assessments due by April 2026 and Important/Essential by April 2027. NIS2-scope entities are effectively required to use it, and the pressure increasingly reaches their suppliers too.
Why Treating Them As Separate Projects Gets Expensive
Run DPDP and CyFun as two independent initiatives and you end up duplicating work that doesn't need duplicating: two separate evidence-collection efforts for overlapping controls (access management, incident response, vendor risk, data retention all show up in both), two audit calendars instead of one, and two teams each building their own version of "what evidence do we even need" from scratch. Neither framework asks for fundamentally different proof DPDP wants to see your data-handling and consent controls are real; CyFun wants to see your security controls are real but without a shared control library, every regime starts the evidence hunt over again.
Map Once, Reuse Everywhere
This is the core idea behind Quantarra's unified compliance architecture: a control gets mapped once, and that mapping carries across every framework it applies to CyFun, ISO 27001, SOC 2, NIST CSF, and custom, business-specific regimes like the data-handling controls DPDP requires. Evidence collects continuously from the systems you already run instead of being gathered fresh per audit, and every framework you're pursuing sits on one live dashboard instead of in separate spreadsheets owned by separate people.
For a multinational compliance team, that's the difference between DPDP and CyFun being two full-time projects and being two views into the same underlying control set.
See It On Your Own Framework Mix
If your organisation is sitting across both regimes or any combination of frameworks that currently live in separate spreadsheets ,book a demo, and we'll walk through what a shared control library looks like for your specific mix.